Donald Trump's politics have shifted considerably over his decades in the public sphere. But one thing he has been consistent on, since the 1980s, is his belief that tariffs are an effective means of boosting the US economy.

Now, he's staking his presidency on his being right.

At his Rose Garden event at the White House, surrounded by friends, conservative politicians and cabinet secretaries, Trump announced sweeping new tariffs on a broad range of countries – allies, competitors and adversaries alike.

In a speech that was equal parts celebration and self-congratulation, regularly punctuated by applause from the crowd, the president recalled his longtime support of tariffs, as well as his early criticism of free trade agreements like Nafta and the World Trade Organization.

The president acknowledged that he will face pushback in the coming days from "globalists" and "special interests", but he urged Americans to trust his instincts.

"Never forget, every prediction our opponents made about trade for the last 30 years has been proven totally wrong," he said.

• Trump to charge tariffs of up to 50% on 'worst offenders' globally
• UK firms react to Trump tariffs: 'It's a huge blow to Scotland's whisky industry'
• No additional US tariffs for Canada, but no relief either

Now, in a second term in which he is surrounded by like-minded advisers and is the dominant force in a Republican Party that controls both chambers of Congress, Trump is in a position to turn his vision of a new America-focused trade policy into reality. These policies, he said, had made the United States into a wealthy nation more than a century ago and would again.

"For years, hard working American citizens were forced to sit on the sidelines as other nations got rich and powerful, much of it at our expense," he said. "With today's action, we are finally going to be able to make America great again - greater than ever before."

It is still an enormous risk for this president to take.

Economists of all stripes warn that these massive tariffs – 53% on China, 20% on the European Union and South Korea, with a 10% baseline on all nations – will be passed along to American consumers, raising prices and threatening a global recession.

Ken Roggoff, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, predicted that the chances of the US, the world's largest economy, falling into recession had risen to 50% on the back of this announcement.

"He just dropped a nuclear bomb on the global trading system," Mr Roggoff told the BBC World Service, adding that the consequences for this level of taxes on imports into the US "is just mind-boggling".

Trump's move also risks escalating a trade war with other countries and alienating allies that America has otherwise tried to strengthen ties with. The US, for instance, sees Japan and South Korea as a bulwark against Chinese expansionist ambitions. But those three countries recently announced that they would work together to respond to America's trade policies.

If Trump is successful, however, he would fundamentally reshape a global economic order that America had originally helped to construct from the ashes of World War 2. He promises that this will rebuild American manufacturing, create new sources of revenue, and make America more self-reliant and insulated from the kind of global supply chain shocks that wreaked havoc on the US during the Covid pandemic.

It's a tall order – and one that many believe to be highly unrealistic. But for a president who seems fixated on cementing his legacy, whether through ending wars, renaming geographic locations, acquiring new territory or dismantling federal programmes and its workforce, this is the biggest, most consequential prize to be won.

It would be, he styled, America's "liberation day".

What appears clear, however, is that Wednesday's announcement, if he follows through, is almost certain to mark a historic change. The question is whether it will be a legacy of achievement or one of notoriety.

Trump's speech was triumphant - one that belied the potentially high costs his moves would impose on the American economy and on his own political standing.

But, he said, it was worth it - even if, at the very end of his remarks, a small shadow of presidential doubt may have peaked through the bravado.

"It's going to be a day that - hopefully - you're going to look back in years to come and you're going to say, you know, he was right."

Donald Trump announced a sweeping new set of reciprocal tariffs on Wednesday, arguing that they would allow the United States to succeed.

Trump's tariffs, which he will impose via executive order, are expected to send economic shockwaves around the world. The White House released a list of roughly 100 countries and the tariff rates that the US would impose in kind.

Here are the basic elements of the plan.

10% baseline tariff

In a background call before Trump's speech, a senior White House official told reporters that the president would impose "baseline tariffs" on all countries.

That rate is set at 10% and will go into effect on 5 April.

Trump argued that Americans were being "ripped off," and that raising tariffs on foreign imports would help restore US manufacturing, reduce taxes, and pay down the national debt.

Trump and White House staffers portrayed the current tariff rates as lenient, compared to the maximum the administration could impose.

Some countries will only face the base rate. These include:

• United Kingdom
• Singapore
• Brazil
• Australia
• New Zealand
• Turkey
• Colombia
• Argentina
• El Salvador
• United Arab Emirates
• Saudi Arabia

Custom tariffs for 'worst offenders'

White House officials also said that they would impose specific reciprocal tariffs on roughly 60 "worst offenders", to go into effect on 9 April.

These countries impose higher tariffs on US goods, impose "non-tariff" barriers to US trade or have otherwise acted in ways the government feels undermine American economic goals.

The White House official said each tariff would be tailored to the specific targeted country.

"We're being very kind," Trump said at his White House event. The tariffs were not fully reciprocal he said, because he would impose a "discounted" reciprocal rate less than what his staff had determined to fully match the trade impact of a given country's trade policies.

The key trading partners subject to these customised tariff rates include:

• European Union: 20%
• China: 34%
• Vietnam: 46%
• Thailand: 36%
• Japan: 24%
• Cambodia: 49%
• South Africa: 30%
• Taiwan: 32%

No additional tariffs on Canada and Mexico

Canada and Mexico are not mentioned in these new tariff announcements.

The White House says that they would deal with both countries using a framework set out in previous executive orders, which imposed tariffs on Canda and Mexico as part of the administration's efforts to address fentanyl and border issues.

He previously set those tariffs at 25%, before announcing some exemptions and delays to their implementation.

• Trump agrees to pause tariffs on Canada and Mexico

25% tariffs on auto imports

In addition, the president announced the US would impose a "25% tariff on all foreign made-automobiles".

Those tariffs would go into affect almost immediately, at midnight on 3 April.

The impact of these tariffs on the world economy will be huge.

They can be measured by the lines on a chart of US tariff revenue jumping to levels not seen in a century - beyond those seen during the high protectionism of the 1930s.

Or in the overnight stock market falls, especially in Asia.

But the true measure of these changes will be significant changes to long-standing global avenues of trade.

At its heart this is a universal tariff of 10% on all imports into the US for everyone, coming in on Friday night. On top of that dozens of "worst offenders" will be charged reciprocally for having trade surpluses.

The tariffs on Asian nations are truly remarkable. They will break the business models of thousands of companies, factories, and possibly entire nations.

Some of the supply chains created by the world's biggest companies will be broken instantly. The inevitable impact will surely be to push them towards China.

• Live: Follow the latest reaction to the tariff announcement
• Trump's plan at a glance
• UK firms react: 'It's a huge blow'

Is this just a grand negotiation? Well the US administration appears to be claiming the tariff revenue for planned tax cuts. The scope for quick adjustment seems limited. As one White House official said bluntly: "This is not a negotiation, it's a national emergency".

The aim of the policy is to get the US trade deficit "back to zero". This is a total rewiring of the world economy.

But shifting factories will take years. Tariffs at this scale on East Asia especially at 30 or 40% will hike prices of clothes, toys and electronics much more quickly.

The question now is how the rest of the world responds.

There are opportunities for some consumers in Europe to benefit from cheaper diverted trade in clothes and electronics. Outside of an inward-looking number one world economy, the rest of the big economies may choose to integrate trade more closely.

As Tesla's slumping sales may illustrate, only part of this story is about the response of governments. These days consumers can retaliate too. It may be a new sort of social media trade war.

Europe could decide not to continue buying the consumer brands created in the US, and loved across the world.

The monopoly in the provision of social media services by big US tech could be shaken up.

And US authorities may need to raise interest rates to combat the inevitable spike in inflation.

A messy global trade war looks inevitable.

It's 10am, and in a little over two hours, Wayne Hawkins will be dead.

The sun is shining on the bungalow where the 80-year-old lives in San Diego, California with his wife of more than five decades, Stella.

I knock on the door and meet his children - Emily, 48, and Ashley, 44 - who have spent the last two weeks at their father's side.

Wayne sits in a reclining chair where he spends most of his days. Terminally ill, he is too weak to leave the house.

He has invited BBC News to witness his death under California's assisted dying laws - because if MPs in London vote to legalise the practice in England and Wales, it will allow some terminally ill people here to die in a similar way.

Half an hour after arriving at Wayne's house, I watch him swallow three anti-nausea tablets, designed to minimise the risk of him vomiting the lethal medication he plans to take shortly.

Are you sure this day is your last, I ask him? "I'm all in," he replies. "I was determined and decided weeks ago - I've had no trepidation since then."

His family ask for one last photo, which I take. As usual, Stella and Wayne are holding hands.

Shortly after, Dr Donnie Moore arrives. He has got to know the family over the past few weeks, visiting them on several occasions alongside running his own end-of-life clinic. Under California law, he is what is known as the attending physician who must confirm, in addition to a second doctor, that Wayne is eligible for aid in dying.

Dr Moore's role is part physician, part counsellor in this situation, one he has been in for 150 assisted deaths before.

On a top shelf in Wayne's bedroom sits a brown glass bottle containing a fine white powder - a mixture of five drugs, sedatives and painkillers, delivered to the house the previous day. The dosage of drugs inside is hundreds of times higher than those used in regular healthcare and is "guaranteed" to be fatal, Dr Moore explains. Unlike California, the proposed law at Westminster would require a doctor to bring any such medication with them.

When Wayne signals he is ready, the doctor mixes the meds with cherry and pineapple juice to soften the bitter taste - and he hands this pink liquid to Wayne.

No one, not even the doctor, knows how long it will take him to die after taking the lethal drugs. Dr Moore explains to me that, in his experience, death usually occurs between 30 minutes and two hours of ingestion, but on one occasion it took 17 hours.

This is the story of how and why Wayne chose to die. And why others have decided not to follow the same course.

We first met the couple a few weeks earlier, when Wayne explained why he was going ahead with the decision to have an assisted death - a controversial measure in other parts of the world.

"Some days the pain is almost more than I can handle," he said. "I just don't see any merit to dying slow and painfully, hooked up with stuff - intubation, feeding tubes," he told me. "I want none of it."

Wayne said he had watched two relatives die "miserable", "heinous" deaths from heart failure.

"I hate hospitals, they are miserable. I will die in the street first."

Wayne met Stella in 1969; the couple married four years later. He told us it was something of an arranged marriage, as his mother kept inviting Stella for dinner until eventually the penny dropped that he should take her out.

They lived for many years in Arcata, northern California, surrounded by sweeping forests of redwood trees, where Wayne worked as a landscape architect, while Stella was a primary school teacher. They spent their holidays hiking and camping with their children.

Now Wayne is terminally ill with heart failure, which has already brought him close to death. He has myriad other health issues including prostate cancer, liver failure and sepsis which brings him serious spinal pain.

He has less than six months to live, qualifying him for an assisted death in California. His request to die has been approved by two doctors and the lethal medication is self-administered.

It was during our first meeting that he asked the BBC to return to observe his final day, saying he wanted terminally ill adults in the UK to have the same right to an assisted death as him.

"Britain is pretty good with freedoms and this is just another one," he said. "People should be able to choose the time of their death as long as they meet the rules like six months to live or less."

Stella, 78, supports his decision. "I've known him for over 50 years. He's a very independent man. He's always known what he wants to do and he's always fixed things. That's how he's operating now. If this is his choice, I definitely agree, and I've seen him really suffer with the illness he's got. I don't want that for him."

Wayne would also qualify under the proposed new assisted dying law in England and Wales. The measures return to the House of Commons later this month, when all MPs will have a chance to debate and vote on changes to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

The proposed legislation, tabled by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, says that anyone who wants to end their life must have the mental capacity to make the choice, that they must be expected to die within six months, and must make two separate declarations - witnessed and signed - about their wish to die. They must satisfy two independent doctors that they are eligible.

MPs in Westminster voted in favour of assisted dying in principle last November but remain bitterly divided on the issue. If they ultimately decide to approve the bill, it could become law within the next year and come into practice within the next four years.

There are also divisions here in California, where assisted dying was introduced in 2016. Michelle and Mike Carter, both 72 and married for 43 years, are each being treated for cancer - Mike has prostate cancer that has spread to his lymph nodes, and Michelle's advanced terminal ovarian cancer has spread throughout much of her body.

"I held my mother's hand when she passed; I held my father's hand when he passed," Michelle told me. "I believe there's freedom of choice however for me, I choose palliative care… I have God and I have good medicine."

Michelle's physician, palliative care specialist Dr Vincent Nguyen, argued that assisted dying laws in the US state lead to "silent coercion" whereby vulnerable people think their only option is to die. "Instead of ending people's lives, let's put programmes together to care for people," he said. "Let them know that they're loved, they're wanted and they're worthy."

He said the law meant that doctors have gone from being seen as healers to killers, while the message from the healthcare system was that "you are better off dead, because you're expensive and your death is cheaper for us".

Some disability campaigners say assisted dying makes them feel unsafe. Ingrid Tischer, who has muscular dystrophy and chronic respiratory failure, told me: "The message that it sends to people with disabilities in California is that you deserve suicide assistance rather than suicide prevention when you voice a desire to end your life.

"What does that say about who we are as a culture?"

Critics often say that once assisted dying is legalised, over time the safeguards around such laws get eroded as part of a "slippery slope" towards more relaxed criteria. In California, there was initially a mandatory 15-day cooling off period between patients making a first and second request for aid in dying. That has been reduced to 48 hours because many patients were dying during the waiting period. It's thought the approval process envisaged in Westminster would take around a month.

'Goodbye,' Wayne tells his family

Outside Wayne's house on the morning of his death, a solitary bird begins its loud and elaborate song. "There's that mockingbird out there," Wayne tells Stella, as smiles flicker across their faces.

Wayne hates the bird because it keeps him awake at night, Stella jokes, hand in hand with him to one side of his chair. Emily and Ashley are next to Stella.

Dr Moore, seated on Wayne's other side, hands him the pink liquid which he swallows without hesitation. "Goodnight," he says to his family - a typical touch of humour from a man who told us he was determined to die on his terms. It's 11.47am.

After two minutes, Wayne says he is getting sleepy. Dr Moore asks him to imagine he is walking in a vast sea of flowers with a soft breeze on his skin, which seems appropriate for a patient who has spent much of his life among nature.

After three minutes Wayne enters a deep sleep from which he will never wake. On a few occasions he lifts his head to take a deep breath without opening his eyes, at one point beginning to snore softly.

Dr Moore tells the family this is "the deepest sleep imaginable" and reassures Emily there is no chance her dad will wake up and ask, "did it work?"

"Oh that would be just like him," Stella says with a laugh.

The family start to reminisce about hiking holidays and driving around in a large van they converted to become a camper. "Me and dad insulated it and put a bed in the back," says Ashley.

On the walls are photos of Emily and Ashley as small children next to huge carved Halloween pumpkins.

Dr Moore is still stroking Wayne's hand and occasionally checking his pulse. For a man who Emily says was "always walking, always outdoors, always active", these are the final moments of life's journey, spent surrounded by those who mean most to him.

At 12.22pm Dr Moore says, "I think he's passed… He's at peace now."

Outside, the mockingbird has fallen silent. "No more pain," says Stella, embracing her children in her arms.

I step outside to give the family some space, and reflect on what we have just seen and filmed.

I have been covering medical ethics for the BBC for more than 20 years. In 2006, I was present just outside an apartment in Zurich where Dr Anne Turner, a retired doctor, died with the help of the group Dignitas - but California was the first time I had been an eyewitness to an assisted death.

This isn't just a story about one man's death in California - it's about what could become a reality here in England and Wales for those who qualify for an assisted death and choose to die this way.

Whether you're for or against the proposed new Westminster law, the death of a loved one is a deeply personal and emotional time for a family. Each death leaves an imprint, as will Wayne's.

Additional reporting by Josh Falcon

Outrage is a precious political currency and France's far right has spent this week attempting, furiously and predictably, to capitalise on the perceived injustice of a court's decision to block its totemic leader, Marine Le Pen, from standing in the 2027 presidential election.

The airwaves have been throbbing with indignation.

"Be outraged," said one of Le Pen's key deputies, on French television, in case anyone was in doubt as to what their reaction should be.

But it remains unclear whether Le Pen's tough sentence will broaden support for her party, the National Rally (RN), or lead to greater fragmentation of the French far right. Either way, it has created a feverish mood among the nation's politicians.

Le Pen and her allies have boldly declared that France's institutions, and democracy itself, have been "executed", are "dead", or "violated". The country's justice system has been turned into a "political" hit squad, shamelessly intervening in a nation's right to choose its own leaders. And Marine Le Pen has been widely portrayed, with something close to certainty, as France's president-in-waiting, as the nation's most popular politician, cruelly robbed of her near-inevitable procession towards the Élysée Palace.

"The system has released a nuclear bomb, and if it is using such a powerful weapon against us, it is obviously because we are about to win the elections," Le Pen fumed at a news conference, comparing herself to the poisoned, imprisoned, and now dead Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny.

As France assesses its latest political tremors, an uneven pushback has begun.

No clear frontrunner for president

Nervous about the impact the judgement may have for the country's frail coalition government, the Prime Minister François Bayrou has admitted to feeling "troubled" by Le Pen's sentence and worried about a "shock" to public opinion.

But other centrist politicians have taken a firmer line, stressing the need for a clear gap between the justice system and politics.

An early opinion poll appears to show the French public taking a calm line, bursting – or at least deflating – the RN's bubble of outrage. The poll, produced within hours of the court's ruling, showed less than a third of the country – 31% - felt the decision to block Le Pen, immediately, from running for public office, was unjust.

Tellingly, that figure was less than the 37% of French people who recently expressed an interest in voting for her as president.

In other words, plenty of people who like her as a politician also think it reasonable that her crimes should disqualify her from running for office.

And remember, French presidential elections are still two years away – an eternity in the current political climate.

Emmanuel Macron is not entitled to stand for another term and no clear alternative to Le Pen, from the left or centre of French politics, has yet emerged. Le Pen's share of the vote has consistently risen during her previous three failed bids for the top job but it is premature, at best, to consider her a shoo-in for 2027.

Le Pen's crime and punishment

Anyone who followed the court case against her and her party colleagues in an impartial fashion would struggle to conclude that the verdicts in Le Pen's case were unreasonable.

The evidence of a massive and coordinated project to defraud the European Parliament and its associated taxpayers included jaw-droppingly incriminating emails suggesting officials knew exactly what they were doing, and the illegality of their actions.

That the corruption was for the party, not for personal gain, surely changes nothing. Corruption is corruption. Besides, other parties have also been found guilty of similar offences.

Regarding the punishments handed out by the court, here it seems fair to argue that Le Pen and her party made a strategic blunder in their approach to the case.

Had they acknowledged the facts, and their errors, and cooperated in facilitating a swift trial rather than helping to drag the process out for almost a decade, the judges – as they've now made clear – might have taken their attitude towards the case into consideration when considering punishments.

"Neither during the investigation nor at the trial did [Le Pen] show any awareness of the need for probity as an elected official, nor of the ensuing responsibilities," wrote the judges in a document explaining, often indignantly, why they'd delivered such a tough sentence.

They berated Le Pen for seeking to delay or avoid justice with "a defence system that disregards the uncovering of the truth".

Hypocrisy among the elite

It is worth noting, here, the wider hypocrisy demonstrated by elites across France's political spectrum who have recently been muttering their sympathy for Le Pen. It is nine years since MPs voted to toughen up the laws on corruption, introducing the very sanctions - on immediately banning criminals from public office - that were used by the judges in this case.

That toughening was welcomed by the public as an antidote to a judicial system stymied by an indulgent culture of successive appeals that enabled – and sometimes still enables - politicians to dodge accountability for decades.

Le Pen is now being gleefully taunted by her critics online with the many past instances in which she has called for stricter laws on corruption.

"When are we going to learn the lessons and effectively introduce lifelong ineligibility for those who have been convicted of acts committed while in office or during their term of office?" she asked in 2013.

Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about the court's sentencing decisions in Le Pen's case. But the notion – enthusiastically endorsed by populist and hard-right politicians across Europe and the US – that she is a victim of a conspiratorial political plot has clearly not convinced most French people.

At least not yet.

Future of France's far right

So where does this verdict – clearly a seismic moment in French politics – leave the National Rally and the wider far-right movement?

The short answer is that no one knows. There are so many variables involved – from the fate of Le Pen's fast-tracked appeal, to the RN's succession strategy, to the state of France's precarious finances, to the broader political climate and the see-sawing appetite for populism both within France and globally – that predictions are an even more dubious game than usual.

The most immediate question – given the slow pace of the legal appeal that Le Pen has vowed to initiate – is whether the RN will seek prompt revenge in parliament by attempting to bring down the fragile coalition government of François Bayrou.

That could lead to new parliamentary elections this summer and the possibility that the RN could capitalise on its victim status to increase its lead in parliament and perhaps, even, to push the country towards a deadlock in which President Macron might – yet another "might" – feel obliged to step down.

One person who will now be facing extra scrutiny is Le Pen's almost but not quite anointed successor, 29-year-old Jordan Bardella, who could be drafted in as a replacement presidential candidate if Le Pen's own "narrow path" towards the Élysée remains blocked on appeal.

If social-media-savvy Bardella's popularity among French youth is any indication of his prospects, he could well sweep to victory in 2027. He has found a way to tap into the frustrations of people angry about falling living standards and concerns about immigration.

But turning youthful support into actual votes is not always straightforward, and other, more experienced and mainstream figures on the right may well be sensing an opportunity too.

The Interior Minister, Bruno Retailleau, is widely seen to be emerging as a potential contender. Some even wonder if the provocative television personality, Cyril Hanouna, might become a serious political force on the right of French politics.

Meanwhile, Bardella, like the RN in general, has been on a highly disciplined mission to detoxify the party's once overtly racist and antisemitic brand. In February, for instance, he abandoned plans to speak at America's far-right CPAC event after Donald Trump's former advisor Steve Bannon made a Nazi salute.

But this week's events have revealed that the RN is enthusiastically committed to the distinctly Trump-ian and populist strategy of blaming its misfortunes on a "swamp" of unelected officials. Bardella, meanwhile, complained about the recent closure of two right-wing media channels alongside his party's own legal struggles.

"There is an extremely serious drift today that does not reflect the idea we have of French democracy," he said.

It's the sort of language that goes down well with the RN's core constituency, but its broader appeal may be limited in a country that remains, in many ways, deeply attached to its institutions.

To frame it another way, will French voters be more motivated by the belief that Le Pen was unfairly punished, or by concern that the judges involved have since been the victims of death threats and other insults?

As for Marine Le Pen, she has vowed that she will not be sidelined. But her destiny is not entirely in her own hands now. At the age of 56 she has become a familiar figure, fiery at times, but personally approachable, warm and, in political terms, profoundly influential and disciplined. So what next for her?

France has had one Le Pen or other (Marine's father, Jean-Marie ran four times) on their presidential ballot paper since 1988. Always unsuccessfully.

History may well look back on this week as the moment Marine Le Pen's fate was sealed, in one of three ways: as France's first female and first far-right president, swept to power on a tide of outrage. As the four-time loser of a French presidential election, finally denied power by the taint of corruption. Or as someone whose soaring political career was brought to an early and shuddering halt by her own miscalculations over a serious embezzlement scandal.

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

Myanmar's junta chief Min Aung Hlaing will travel to Thailand for a regional summit as his country reels from an earthquake that killed thousands and left cities in ruins.

The earthquake in central Myanmar last Friday killed 3,085 people and injured 4,715, the junta has said. Hundreds more are missing and the toll is expected to rise.

A spokesman for the Myanmar army said Min Aung Hlaing is scheduled to fly to Bangkok on Thursday, on the eve of a summit that will gather leaders of the seven countries that border the Bay of Bengal.

His attendance will be unusual as sanctioned leaders are typically barred from these events.

Host Thailand, where the earthquake was felt and killed 21 people, has proposed that the leaders issue a joint statement on the disaster. Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka are also part of the summit.

Countries around the world have sent aid and rescue teams to Myanmar since the quake, but poor infrastructure and an ongoing civil war has complicated relief efforts.

The junta announced a temporary ceasefire late on Wednesday to expedite these efforts, after earlier rejecting proposals from armed ethnic rebel groups.

Before this, the military had continued its airstrikes in rebel-held areas, including those badly hit by the earthquake.

On Tuesday night, troops opened fire at a Chinese Red Cross convoy carrying relief supplies. The junta said the troops fired after the convoy refused to stop despite being signalled to do so.

Myanmar has been gripped by a bloody civil war since the military seized power in 2021, which led to the rise of an armed resistance that has been fighting alongside armed ethnic groups, some of which have been fighting the military for decades.

Years of violence have crippled the economy, supercharged inflation, and plunged the country into a humanitarian crisis.

Now, the earthquake has worsened the crisis. Humanitarian groups have urged the junta to lift any remaining obstructions to aid.

The UN has also urged the global community to ramp up aid before the monsoon season hits in about a month.

A record number of victims of so-called revenge porn reported intimate image abuse to a dedicated UK helpline last year.

In 2024, the Revenge Porn Helpline, funded by the Home Office, recorded 22,227 new cases, a 20.9% increase from the previous year.

Non-consensual intimate image (NCII) abuse is illegal in the UK, and occurs when sexual photos or videos are produced, published or reproduced without consent, both online and offline.

The helpline manually reports non-consensual intimate images for removal on behalf of victims, by using reverse image searches, and contacting the platforms where the content was shared.

The service helped to remove 81,000 intimate images last year, but despite this, re-victimisation rose by 260%, with 61,213 previously reported images continuing to circulate online.

Helpline manager Sophie Mortimer said revenge porn was one of "the most significant and concerning digital harms affecting adults".

'The shame shouldn't be on me'

Jasmine, 28, says she never thought she would become a victim of revenge porn when she shared intimate topless images of herself with an ex-boyfriend.

"You only send photos to people you trust, I'd known him for years. I never would have suspected that he would do it," she said.

"A close friend at the time messaged me to say, 'hey, look, I've come across you on these websites', and that was the first I'd heard of it. I'm not sure how long it had been happening before then," she added.

Jasmine describes feeling "constant paranoia" ever since her intimate images were shared eight years ago.

"It's horrendous, to be honest, even to the point where if a man smiles at me on the street, I'm like: 'Are you polite? Or have you seen me on one of these websites?'"

"For years I didn't talk about it, but now I've started. The shame shouldn't be on me, it should be on him. I refuse to have that shame."

Jasmine says she reported the matter to the police and the individual was given a verbal warning.

Non-consensual intimate image abuse can appear in different forms, such as sextortion, voyeurism, synthetic sexual content - also known as deepfakes and threats to share.

In the 10 years since its launch, the helpline has removed a total of 387,000 intimate images.

Manager Sophie Mortimer says the numbers coming to the helpline are just the "tip of an enormous iceberg".

She believes the true number of those affected is much higher than the reported figures show.

"What we need is really robust and detailed data collection that is consistent across all our police forces and that is then tied up with prosecution outcomes."

"We're not seeing patterns from police data, or whether there are any regional variations or what different police forces are seeing, as well as what those outcomes are like."

"Prosecution rates remain painfully low and victims deserve better outcomes."

As of 31 January 2024, prosecutors no longer need to prove intent to cause distress when a person shares non-consensual intimate images.

But it is still legal to possess them.

The Women and Equalities Committee says the law needs to be strengthened to make possession of non-consensual intimate images illegal.

Frances Ridout, director of the Queen Mary Legal Advice Centre, says those convicted of sharing intimate images without consent are sometimes given their devices back.

She says deprivation orders, which would strip offenders of this right, are not used enough.

Official police data on revenge porn is hard to quantify because there is no national database.

Each police force records data independently and follows different procedures for data collection so it is hard to get a national picture. The information provided by the Revenge Porn Helpline helps show the scale of the problem.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “Women have the right to feel safe wherever they are, in both the online and offline world." Last year laws were strengthened to ensure platforms must take steps to proactively remove this material.

Jasmine says the images were removed after she reported them to the police but she regrets sharing intimate images.

"It's not worth the momentary fun versus stress for potentially the rest of your life," she says.

"Young girls need to be aware that those images can follow you for the rest of your life if they're in the wrong hands.

"And you will never know if it's the wrong hands until it's too late."

If you have been affected by issues raised in this story, help is available via the BBC Action Line

Prospective buyers say they feel "lied to" and "angry" after losing thousands of pounds reserving unfinished flats.

People paid up to £5,000 as a "reservation deposit" for apartments in Tollesbury House, Ipswich, with some being told it was expected to be finished in November 2022.

The development remains uninhabited and, after losing the fee when she pulled out, one buyer has been left asking "how long do you wait for something to be built?".

The JaeVee group, the developer, denied any misconduct and said "buyers were required to exchange contracts within an agreed timeframe", adding they lost their non-refundable reservation deposits because they did not comply with contractual deadlines as was normal in the industry.

The group has ongoing plans for more than 500 properties - mostly flats - across Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and London.

But some sites have faced years of delay, including Tollesbury House, a 16-apartment development in Ipswich's Duke Street, near the waterfront and university.

The BBC has seen a Facebook promotional video posted in January 2019 of JaeVee director Ben James Smith saying the development was expected to be finished in "15 to 18 months".

In 2022 - and with the flats still not completed - Janeane Slinn paid a £5,000 reservation deposit for an apartment.

The agreement was done with a "view to formally exchange sale contracts within six weeks" after receiving a pack from solicitors and stated an "anticipated completion date" of 29 November 2022.

Ms Slinn pulled out in March 2023 with the building still unfinished, but has been left out of pocket despite asking for her deposit back.

She said: "There must be something somewhere that says they've got to hold up their end of the deal as well as me holding up my end of the deal – they haven't built something."

Ms Slinn added: "You just feel a bit stupid, don't you? You think 'how gullible can you be to give £5,000 to people you don't even know who they are?'."

Asked about the delays at Tollesbury House, the developer said there had been a challenging economic environment across the sector during the past few years which had led to industry-wide delays.

Retired engineer Paul Sigston, 65, was looking for a home after moving back to the UK from the Netherlands in 2022. He also paid £5,000 as a "reservation deposit" and was given the same anticipated completion date in his reservation agreement.

But he asked for his money back in October 2022, writing in a letter to JaeVee that the walls weren't finished, there were no windows and "I don't think there is any chance the project will be ready for completion in November [2022]."

He said he received "absolutely no reply" to that letter and has not got his money back.

Two years later, Catherine Bullough paid £2,500 - a half-price discount for first-time buyers - in March 2024 to take a flat "off the market".

"From then on in the problems began," she claimed.

The 32-year-old was given an "anticipated completion date" of 8 May 2024 and visited weekly, excited to see progress, but "there was just absolutely nothing happening".

"Even the management office that was there when I went to look around had packed up and left," she said.

"I was being put under real pressure by the sales team to exchange contracts. I was getting phone calls most days... yet the property remained looking exactly the same."

Ms Bullough pulled out in September 2024 and while she was aware her deposit was non-refundable believed the agreement was void "because they hadn't fulfilled their end of the contract".

"I feel like the whole experience from start to finish was one of being lied to, being told false information time and time again about what was happening with the sale and with the property and it's impacted me massively," she said.

Ms Bullough said she "can't believe" others were "in the same position" as her.

"We all handed our money over, we've all not seen any of what we were promised and it makes me so angry."

Director of JaeVee Mr Smith told the BBC "at no stage did [JaeVee] say the apartments were ready at the point of reservation".

He said: "Withdrawals occurred due to buyers failing to exchange, not due to [JaeVee's] actions.

The company said the building work at Tollesbury House, which is part of a much larger phased development, would be finished in May.

The developer pointed to a challenging economic environment across the sector over the last few years which had caused industry wide delays.

What about other developments?

The JaeVee-linked group uses private investment to help fund the purchase of sites for development, like Tollesbury House, and advertises returns to investors of up to 100% when those properties are developed and then sold.

The BBC has spoken to an investor who - tempted by these sorts of returns - invested more than £84,000 combined in JaeVee's Ferry Boat Inn project in Norwich and Eastern Escape in north London in the summer of 2019.

More than five years on, one of the JaeVee subsidiary companies developing the sites is in administration and the other is in receivership.

The investor said communication had been sporadic but JaeVee "did like to contact [us] when they were looking for money for more investments – that seemed to happen a lot more frequently than giving updates on the current ones".

The JaeVee group has said it is in the process of buying back both the Eastern Escape and the Ferry Boat Inn sites using a bridging loan and that the interests of investors in these projects were being protected.

The investor - who has expressed fears for their money - said they had felt some reassurance as JaeVee was sending out more detailed updates on projects than it had in the past, but they are still waiting to see results.

Director Mr Smith said the "situation highlights a broader issue within the unregulated property development finance sector" and claimed lenders can exert pressure on put development companies "to extract additional fees and penalties from borrowers".

While seven Jaevee group-linked companies are in administration or receivership, Mr Smith told the BBC the group had an "extensive portfolio of successful developments, demonstrating our commitment to investor success and project delivery".

They include a "boutique" hotel in Wymondham, Norfolk, "high-end" residential homes in Northbourne, Kent, and turning a former seafront hotel in Sheringham, Norfolk, into flats.

He claimed "these examples reinforce that JaeVee has consistently acted in the best interests of its investors".

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has said US tariffs on European Union imports are "wrong", after US President Donald Trump announced he would begin charging a 20% rate on EU goods.

Meloni is one of the many world leaders reacting to Trump's "liberation day" announcements, which include a universal 10% baseline tariff on all imports into the US from 5 April.

Around 60 countries - including the EU - will be hit with steeper tariffs from 9 April. Some of the highest rates will be levied on smaller countries, such as Lesotho, which has been hit with a 50% levy.

Trump said the measures would "make America rich again", adding that he had been "very kind" in his decisions.

• Trump tariffs live updates

Meloni, a Trump ally, said the EU tariffs would "not suit either party" - referring to the EU and the US - but that she would work towards a deal with the US to "prevent a trade war".

Her Spanish counterpart Pedro Sánchez said Spain would protect its companies and workers and "continue to be committed to an open world."

Irish trade minister Simon Harris said he was ready to negotiate with the US, calling it the "best way forward", while Taoiseach Micheál Martin said Trump's decision was "deeply regrettable" and benefitted "no-one".

Outside of the EU, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Americans would end up paying the biggest price for what he called "unjustified tariffs", but said his government would not impose reciprocal measures.

"We will not join a race to the bottom that leads to higher prices and slower growth", he added.

Latin America's biggest economy, Brazil, approved a law in congress on Wednesday - the Economic Reciprocity Law - to counter the 10% tariff imposed by Trump. There was no immediate reaction from the president, but last week Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said his country "cannot stand still" in face of the tariffs.

Shortly after Trump's announcement, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned countries not to "retaliate" and "sit back, take it in".

"Because if you retaliate, there will be escalation", he told Fox News.

Noticeably, the US's two biggest trade partners, Canada and Mexico, were not mentioned in Wednesday's announcements.

The White House said it would deal with both countries according to previous executive orders, which imposed 25% tariffs on the two nations as part of efforts to address fentanyl and border issues.

Regardless, Canada will still be impacted by the tariffs, Prime Minister Mark Carney said. Measures such as the 25% tariff on automobiles starting at midnight on Thursday would "directly affect millions of Canadians", he added.

He vowed to "fight these tariffs with counter measures", adding that the US levies would "fundamentally change the global trading system."

Outrage is a precious political currency and France's far right has spent this week attempting, furiously and predictably, to capitalise on the perceived injustice of a court's decision to block its totemic leader, Marine Le Pen, from standing in the 2027 presidential election.

The airwaves have been throbbing with indignation.

"Be outraged," said one of Le Pen's key deputies, on French television, in case anyone was in doubt as to what their reaction should be.

But it remains unclear whether Le Pen's tough sentence will broaden support for her party, the National Rally (RN), or lead to greater fragmentation of the French far right. Either way, it has created a feverish mood among the nation's politicians.

Le Pen and her allies have boldly declared that France's institutions, and democracy itself, have been "executed", are "dead", or "violated". The country's justice system has been turned into a "political" hit squad, shamelessly intervening in a nation's right to choose its own leaders. And Marine Le Pen has been widely portrayed, with something close to certainty, as France's president-in-waiting, as the nation's most popular politician, cruelly robbed of her near-inevitable procession towards the Élysée Palace.

"The system has released a nuclear bomb, and if it is using such a powerful weapon against us, it is obviously because we are about to win the elections," Le Pen fumed at a news conference, comparing herself to the poisoned, imprisoned, and now dead Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny.

As France assesses its latest political tremors, an uneven pushback has begun.

No clear frontrunner for president

Nervous about the impact the judgement may have for the country's frail coalition government, the Prime Minister François Bayrou has admitted to feeling "troubled" by Le Pen's sentence and worried about a "shock" to public opinion.

But other centrist politicians have taken a firmer line, stressing the need for a clear gap between the justice system and politics.

An early opinion poll appears to show the French public taking a calm line, bursting – or at least deflating – the RN's bubble of outrage. The poll, produced within hours of the court's ruling, showed less than a third of the country – 31% - felt the decision to block Le Pen, immediately, from running for public office, was unjust.

Tellingly, that figure was less than the 37% of French people who recently expressed an interest in voting for her as president.

In other words, plenty of people who like her as a politician also think it reasonable that her crimes should disqualify her from running for office.

And remember, French presidential elections are still two years away – an eternity in the current political climate.

Emmanuel Macron is not entitled to stand for another term and no clear alternative to Le Pen, from the left or centre of French politics, has yet emerged. Le Pen's share of the vote has consistently risen during her previous three failed bids for the top job but it is premature, at best, to consider her a shoo-in for 2027.

Le Pen's crime and punishment

Anyone who followed the court case against her and her party colleagues in an impartial fashion would struggle to conclude that the verdicts in Le Pen's case were unreasonable.

The evidence of a massive and coordinated project to defraud the European Parliament and its associated taxpayers included jaw-droppingly incriminating emails suggesting officials knew exactly what they were doing, and the illegality of their actions.

That the corruption was for the party, not for personal gain, surely changes nothing. Corruption is corruption. Besides, other parties have also been found guilty of similar offences.

Regarding the punishments handed out by the court, here it seems fair to argue that Le Pen and her party made a strategic blunder in their approach to the case.

Had they acknowledged the facts, and their errors, and cooperated in facilitating a swift trial rather than helping to drag the process out for almost a decade, the judges – as they've now made clear – might have taken their attitude towards the case into consideration when considering punishments.

"Neither during the investigation nor at the trial did [Le Pen] show any awareness of the need for probity as an elected official, nor of the ensuing responsibilities," wrote the judges in a document explaining, often indignantly, why they'd delivered such a tough sentence.

They berated Le Pen for seeking to delay or avoid justice with "a defence system that disregards the uncovering of the truth".

Hypocrisy among the elite

It is worth noting, here, the wider hypocrisy demonstrated by elites across France's political spectrum who have recently been muttering their sympathy for Le Pen. It is nine years since MPs voted to toughen up the laws on corruption, introducing the very sanctions - on immediately banning criminals from public office - that were used by the judges in this case.

That toughening was welcomed by the public as an antidote to a judicial system stymied by an indulgent culture of successive appeals that enabled – and sometimes still enables - politicians to dodge accountability for decades.

Le Pen is now being gleefully taunted by her critics online with the many past instances in which she has called for stricter laws on corruption.

"When are we going to learn the lessons and effectively introduce lifelong ineligibility for those who have been convicted of acts committed while in office or during their term of office?" she asked in 2013.

Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about the court's sentencing decisions in Le Pen's case. But the notion – enthusiastically endorsed by populist and hard-right politicians across Europe and the US – that she is a victim of a conspiratorial political plot has clearly not convinced most French people.

At least not yet.

Future of France's far right

So where does this verdict – clearly a seismic moment in French politics – leave the National Rally and the wider far-right movement?

The short answer is that no one knows. There are so many variables involved – from the fate of Le Pen's fast-tracked appeal, to the RN's succession strategy, to the state of France's precarious finances, to the broader political climate and the see-sawing appetite for populism both within France and globally – that predictions are an even more dubious game than usual.

The most immediate question – given the slow pace of the legal appeal that Le Pen has vowed to initiate – is whether the RN will seek prompt revenge in parliament by attempting to bring down the fragile coalition government of François Bayrou.

That could lead to new parliamentary elections this summer and the possibility that the RN could capitalise on its victim status to increase its lead in parliament and perhaps, even, to push the country towards a deadlock in which President Macron might – yet another "might" – feel obliged to step down.

One person who will now be facing extra scrutiny is Le Pen's almost but not quite anointed successor, 29-year-old Jordan Bardella, who could be drafted in as a replacement presidential candidate if Le Pen's own "narrow path" towards the Élysée remains blocked on appeal.

If social-media-savvy Bardella's popularity among French youth is any indication of his prospects, he could well sweep to victory in 2027. He has found a way to tap into the frustrations of people angry about falling living standards and concerns about immigration.

But turning youthful support into actual votes is not always straightforward, and other, more experienced and mainstream figures on the right may well be sensing an opportunity too.

The Interior Minister, Bruno Retailleau, is widely seen to be emerging as a potential contender. Some even wonder if the provocative television personality, Cyril Hanouna, might become a serious political force on the right of French politics.

Meanwhile, Bardella, like the RN in general, has been on a highly disciplined mission to detoxify the party's once overtly racist and antisemitic brand. In February, for instance, he abandoned plans to speak at America's far-right CPAC event after Donald Trump's former advisor Steve Bannon made a Nazi salute.

But this week's events have revealed that the RN is enthusiastically committed to the distinctly Trump-ian and populist strategy of blaming its misfortunes on a "swamp" of unelected officials. Bardella, meanwhile, complained about the recent closure of two right-wing media channels alongside his party's own legal struggles.

"There is an extremely serious drift today that does not reflect the idea we have of French democracy," he said.

It's the sort of language that goes down well with the RN's core constituency, but its broader appeal may be limited in a country that remains, in many ways, deeply attached to its institutions.

To frame it another way, will French voters be more motivated by the belief that Le Pen was unfairly punished, or by concern that the judges involved have since been the victims of death threats and other insults?

As for Marine Le Pen, she has vowed that she will not be sidelined. But her destiny is not entirely in her own hands now. At the age of 56 she has become a familiar figure, fiery at times, but personally approachable, warm and, in political terms, profoundly influential and disciplined. So what next for her?

France has had one Le Pen or other (Marine's father, Jean-Marie ran four times) on their presidential ballot paper since 1988. Always unsuccessfully.

History may well look back on this week as the moment Marine Le Pen's fate was sealed, in one of three ways: as France's first female and first far-right president, swept to power on a tide of outrage. As the four-time loser of a French presidential election, finally denied power by the taint of corruption. Or as someone whose soaring political career was brought to an early and shuddering halt by her own miscalculations over a serious embezzlement scandal.

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