The UK military is focused on defending the nation rather than stopping asylum seekers from crossing the Channel, a cabinet minister has said.
US President Donald Trump sugested that military intervention could be used to deal with illegal migration to the UK during his state visit this week.
But Trade Secretary Peter Kyle has rejected that call, telling BBC Breakfast the UK Border Force has specific responsibility for policing UK borders.
He added the Navy has a "working relationship" with the border force and can be called up on when needed, but was focused on "national defence".
A second migrant has been returned to France after losing an eleventh hour legal challenge against his removal, in a sign the courts are growing colder on such legal challenges under new government guidance.
However, rather than the Labour government's approach of diplomatic negotiations agreeing returns and toughening up court guidance, Trump suggested military force was a better deterrent.
Speaking alongside Sir Keir Starmer at a press conference at the PM's country residence Chequers on Thursday, Trump suggested such force was needed as illegal migration "destroys countries from within".
He said: "You have people coming in and I told the prime minister I would stop it, and it doesn't matter if you call out the military, it doesn't matter what means you use."
Asked about the US president's claims, Kyle told BBC Breakfast: "Well, what he suggested was the military are used, but we have the UK Border Force that is now established and has been reinforced and bolstered and have new powers under this Government.
"The Navy actually does have a working relationship with the UK Border Force, and the Navy can be called upon if needed, so we do have the functional relationship that we need between our military and keeping our borders safe and secure.
"But what we really need at the moment is our military focused on all of those really key issues around the world, directly relating to our national defence."
The new home secretary Shabana Mahmood has vowed to fight what she called "vexatious, last-minute claims" and Kyle described her as "straining at the bit" to make sure the pilot one-in-one-out scheme for migrant returns was a success.
"We're making sure we get as many people as don't have the right to be here returned as swiftly as possible," he said, adding there are "a lot of cases" going through court.
Asked whether there was any target figure for the number of returns, Kyle said: "Our target is to make sure that everybody who comes to our shore and doesn't have the right to stay is removed from the country, that is our target.
"We want to get a full grip on the systm, we want to make sure people see a fuctioning system that's delivering so rapidly, efficiently and swiftly that people don't come here in the first place, that's the deterrent that we need."
About 100 men who arrived in the UK by small boat are currently in immigration removal centres near Heathrow and may be removed to France under the scheme.
The Home Office said more deportation flights are planned into next week and a government appeal has been launched, aimed at limiting the time migrants have to provide evidence to challenge their removal.
More than 5,500 migrants have reached the UK since the scheme came into effect at the start of August but the government is hoping continuing removal flights will act as a deterrent.
Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
A British couple who were detained for nearly eight months by the Taliban in Afghanistan have been released, an official with knowledge of the case has said.
Peter Reynolds, 80, and his wife Barbie, 76, who have lived in the country for nearly two decades, were held after being stopped while travelling home on 1 February.
The couple were freed through Qatari mediation, after they were transferred from Kabul's central prison to a larger prison during the final phase of negotiations, the official said.
It follows months of public lobbying by their family for their release.
Just six days ago, an American woman who was detained with them and subsequently released told the BBC they were "literally dying" in prison and that "time is running out".
Faye Hall, who was let go two months into her detention, highlighted that the elderly couple's health had deteriorated rapidly while in prison.
To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
This video can not be played
Media caption,
Are black market tickets out of control?
Published
A black market selling thousands of Premier League tickets has been revealed by a BBC investigation.
Companies based at a number of overseas locations, including in a Swiss town with a population of 4,000, are behind it.
They are thought to be using memberships and computer software to obtain tickets at scale through clubs' online ticket platforms.
The resale of tickets is illegal in the UK, and the Premier League names the websites on an "unauthorised list"., external
Despite this, BBC Sport was able to buy tickets easily through the black market for four of last weekend's games. The practice has been described as "endemic" in English football.
Sunday's Manchester derby was sold out weeks ago, but we bought a pair of tickets in the City end days before the match.
We also made purchases for fixtures at Arsenal, Everton and West Ham.
At all four matches, our journalists were able to use the tickets to gain entry to the game.
But for others who have used these websites, this is not always the case, with fans telling BBC Sport they paid for tickets that didn't let them into games.
The tickets cost us two to four times the face value, and some were sent via UK phone numbers on Whatsapp, on one occasion with strict instructions not to speak to stewards.
The findings have prompted calls for clubs, the Premier League and government to do more to crackdown on the black market.
There is concern that the scale of the market is making it harder for supporters to get tickets from official sources at face value - and also creating a potential safety threat to strict segregation rules.
In response, clubs said they were working hard in this area, and had already cancelled tens of thousands of memberships and tickets.
Image caption,
Tickets on sale on the black market are causing problems for clubs and supporters
Concern practice is 'endemic across the game'
Image caption,
Nearly 33,000 tickets were listed for the four games we attended across these four websites
We chose to focus on four websites from this list that were accessible in the UK and appeared to be selling the most tickets.
The four sites in total listed tens of thousands of Premier League tickets for sale.
For example, more than 18,000 tickets were advertised for Arsenal v Nottingham Forest alone - nearly a third of the Emirates' capacity.
BBC Sport was not able to verify whether all these tickets were genuine beyond the ones we bought.
Ticket security expert Reg Walker believes "speculative listings - tickets these websites don't have" may explain the advertised numbers.
"In reality, probably only 10-25% of those tickets actually exist," he added.
For context, 10% would mean thousands of tickets for each round of Premier League matches.
Prices we saw ranged from £55 to £14,962, often far exceeding face value and usually including a significant booking fee.
"We had a family of Japanese tourists who paid £2,200 for tickets with an £87 face value," said Walker, who works with Premier League clubs as a consultant and has been operating in the ticketing industry for 40 years.
Tickets were even listed for Arsenal's exclusive Diamond Club and Manchester City's Tunnel Club.
The Football Supporters' Association called our findings "very concerning".
"It confirms what we've heard anecdotally...this is becoming endemic across the game," said FSA chair Tom Greatrex.
"Long-term supporters are finding it impossible to get tickets because of the way they are made available through secondary agencies."
The Premier League, which declined to comment on the findings, sees ticketing as primarily a responsibility of the clubs, but it is in the process of renewing its central support for club anti-touting operations.
Image caption,
Three of the tickets we received belonged to either members or season ticket holders
All our tickets were transferred digitally, in one instance on the morning of the game, and worked as mobile passes.
Seat numbers were not divulged until the tickets arrived.
For Everton's new Hill Dickinson Stadium, we ordered an upper tier, behind the goal seat.
Days after the game at the Etihad, one digital ticket automatically changed in our mobile wallet - displaying a different seat number and appearing to be for the Champions League fixture against Napoli.
Only two of the clubs we visited responded to a request for comment on our findings.
Arsenal said they had cancelled almost 74,000 accounts attempting to obtain tickets in unauthorised ways as part of "strong action against ticket touting".
Everton said they have been running "joint operations with Merseyside Police to act against touts operating online and in person".
Image source, Getty Images
Image caption,
Thousands of Premier League ticket listings can be traced to the town of Engelberg in the Swiss Alps
Companies 'exploiting a loophole and putting fans at risk'
But the four companies used are registered abroad - in Spain, Dubai, Germany and Estonia - and beyond the scope of UK law.
Even so, they are all actively targeting UK customers with online ads, and sellers from Live Football Tickets, Seatsnet and Football Ticket Net contacted us from UK phone numbers.
Ticombo - the firm registered in Germany - had multiple offices in Engelberg, a mountain resort in central Switzerland with a population of 4,000.
It was the only company to respond to our findings, sending a statement from "Ticombo legal", saying it is a "trusted resale platform" and highlighting "the important role of secondary markets in promoting consumer choice and competition".
In its statement, it said that it categorically rejects allegations of wrongdoing or possible illegal practices.
Ticombo said that "regulations that completely prohibit ticket resale are envisaged to protect consumers but, in reality, only grant a monopoly for the organisers".
It even asked us to leave the company a positive Trustpilot review if we had a "positive experience" at the London Stadium.
"There seems to be a loophole where agencies are based abroad that needs to be looked at in terms of legislation," says Greatrex, who is a former Labour MP.
"If we have a situation where segregation is undermined to such an extent that you have away fans in home areas, there is potential for an incident to occur."
Image caption,
Our sports editor accessed this seat in the Etihad Stadium's South Stand with a ticket bought five days before the Manchester derby
Inside the Etihad alongside Man City's most ardent supporters
ByDan Roan
Sports editor, AtEtihad Stadium
There was plenty of choice for the Manchester derby on the "unauthorised" site we used just days before the game.
Opting for the cheapest ticket we could find, mine cost around three times face value and arrived via a link from a mobile phone a few days later.
It was accompanied with strict instructions.
I was told not to speak to security staff, that I must "go inside the stadium one hour before kick-off (no earlier)" and to delete the ticket after the match "for security purposes".
Adding to the suspicion, I was advised - if challenged over the ticket - to lie and say it was a free gift, because stadium staff "have an incentive to invalidate tickets".
Despite such warnings, my ticket was scanned without anything being flagged. No questions asked, entry was surprisingly easy.
The instructions also included a request not to wear away team colours.
It is clear why this advice is given. The ticket was for a seat in the home section, behind one of the goals. I was in with some of City's most ardent supporters.
Fans from several clubs have become increasingly frustrated by opposition supporters appearing in home sections.
My visit to the Etihad demonstrated the extent to which resale sites can undermine segregation rules designed to keep rival fans apart in the interests of safety.
Image caption,
We received this advice from Football Ticket Net (left) and another customer was sent these instructions from Live Football Tickets (right) for a game at Old Trafford
'It's an arms race'
None of the companies involved would provide details of the exact method they used to obtain tickets at such scale.
But more generally, many tickets that end up on the black market are acquired by touts using software bots and fake identities.
"You are talking about tens of thousands of memberships in the hands of touts at most clubs," said Walker.
"We identified over 900 memberships at a Premier League club that were under the control of one of the directors of these resale sites.
"It's an arms race."
Figures released by some clubs in the past year indicate the scale of the challenge:
Arsenal removed 30,000 "suspicious entries" from their ticket ballots
Chelsea blocked 350,000 "bot purchases"
Liverpool shut down 100,000 "fake ticketing accounts"
Yet only 12 arrests were recorded by the Home Office last season for ticket touting anywhere in the top six tiers of English football.
Manal Smith was Arsenal's head of ticketing up until April.
She says the hardest part of her job was the "disappointment of a supporter who turns up and is denied entry".
We spoke to several fans who paid hundreds of pounds for tickets from "unauthorised" platforms and did not get to watch the game they had been looking forward to.
A 50th birthday trip from Devon to Old Trafford was ruined.
A 79-year-old Crystal Palace fan missed his team lifting the FA Cup at Wembley.
Smith's advice for anyone thinking of using one of these sites is this: "Just don't do it. Please don't do it."
An Eritrean man is due to be flown out of the UK on Friday morning under the government's "one in, one out" deal with France, after a last-minute court bid to delay the departure failed.
He will become the second person removed from the UK under the policy when his flight leaves at 06.15.
This comes a little over a month since the UK and France agreed the year-long pilot scheme of exchanges of migrants in the hope of deterring small boat crossings.
The first flight under the agreement returned one person, an Indian national, to France on Thursday.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the first return demonstrated to people attempting small boat crossings "if you enter the UK illegally, we will seek to remove you".
The Eritrean man set to fly to France on Friday morning arrived in England on a small boat in August.
His lawyers had argued that he may have been the victim of human trafficking.
In a ruling after a three-hour emergency hearing on Thursday, the presiding judge said there was no legal justification to delay the transport of the unnamed man.
Mr Justice Sheldon said there was "significant public interest" in removing him, noting that home secretary was acting in the public interest by pursuing a policy to combat dangerous people smuggling.
He would instead have an opportunity to make his case in France.
"There is no serious issue to be tried in this case that the claimant has been denied procedural fairness," said the judge.
The Eritrean man said he fled his home country in 2019 because of forced conscription - and he spent time in Ethiopia, South Sudan and Libya before coming to Europe.
He said he had lived in France, sleeping rough, and eventually made his way to Dunkirk to try to cross to England.
But in his ruling, Mr Justice Sheldon noted the man had given differing accounts of his allegations of trafficking, and so it was open to the home office to conclude that "his account of trafficking could not reasonably be believed".
The judgement came just hours after the Home Office changed its policy on how to handle modern day slavery claims from English Channel migrants, to make it harder for them to resist being sent to France.
The new policy means that a migrant who is refused protection in the UK because they have suffered slavery or trafficking may only challenge that decision after they have been flown out of the country.
US President Donald Trump weighed in on illegal immigration to the UK at the end of his state visit.
During a press conference with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, he suggested using the military to combat small boat crossings.
Starmer countered by affirming that the UK had "a number of cooperation deals with other countries" in place and are taking the issue "incredibly seriously".
The Home Office says that more flights are planned in the coming days, but it is not clear how many passengers will be booked on to each one because of ongoing legal challenges – or threats of them.
Around 100 men are currently in immigration removal centres near Heathrow under the scheme. Each one was detained after arriving in the UK on a small boat and told they were potentially eligible to be returned to France.
The "one in, one out" deal is intended to deter people from turning to smugglers to cross the Channel because of the risk they could be sent back.
It proposes that, for each migrant the UK returns to France, another migrant with a strong case for asylum in the UK will come in return.
Neither government has suggested that the plan will smash the crossings on its own.
Around 5,590 migrants have reached the UK since the scheme came into effect at the start of August.
Some Israeli officials believe the military assault on Gaza City will deliver a decisive blow to the group, which continues to stage ambushes and guerrilla attacks.
America’s late-night talk show hosts rallied Thursday to support Jimmy Kimmel after his suspension — and accused President Donald Trump of sliding into authoritarianism.
TV network ABC yanked Kimmel off air after comments about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk that appeared to associate his alleged assassin with the MAGA movement triggered a backlash from Trump allies.
Stephen Colbert — whose own program on CBS was canceled after he criticized the network’s decision to pay Trump millions to settle a lawsuit — used his opening monologue to slam the Trump administration and ABC for “blatant censorship.”
“With an autocrat, you cannot give an inch,” Colbert said. “If ABC thinks that this is going to satisfy the regime, they are woefully naive.”
Colbert was joined by Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," who mockingly played the role of a grovelling propagandist in a dictatorship.
In front of a fake gold backdrop, a jab at Trump's redesign of the White House, Stewart informed viewers the episode would be "another fun, hilarious, administration-compliant show.”
His guest was Maria Ressa, author of the book "How To Stand Up To A Dictator: The Fight for Our Future."
Over at "The Tonight Show" on NBC, Jimmy Fallon called Kimmel "a decent, funny and loving guy” and called for his reinstatement.
Fallon reassured viewers he would not be “censored” and launched into a commentary about Trump’s visit this week to the U.K. — before he was quickly drowned out by a satirical voiceover saying the president was “incredibly handsome” and “restoring our national reputation.”
Disney-owned ABC announced Wednesday it was indefinitely pausing Kimmel’s late-night talk show, "Jimmy Kimmel Live!," caving to pressure from Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed chair of the Federal Communications Commission.
Carr had urged ABC and local broadcasters earlier that day “to take action” against Kimmel, calling the comedian’s comments “truly sick” and warning, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.”
Asked about the Kimmel decision, Trump told reporters Thursday the talk show host had “said a horrible thing” about Kirk and “had very bad ratings.”
“They should have fired him a long time ago,” he added. “So, you know, you could call that free speech or not.”
Kimmel’s indefinite suspension earned a rebuke from another titan of late-night television: David Letterman.
“It’s ridiculous. You can’t go around firing somebody because you’re fearful or trying to suck up to an authoritarian, a criminal administration in the Oval Office,” Letterman said at The Atlantic Festival on Thursday. “That’s just not how this works.”
The 78-year-old comedian added he had been in touch with Kimmel, who was “going to be fine.”
Former President Barack Obama also weighed in, writing on X that the Trump administration had taken cancel culture “to a new and dangerous level” and was using the threat of regulatory crackdowns to “muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn’t like.”
Bill Simmons, the godfather of American sports podcasting and a longtime friend of Kimmel, used his show to decry Disney and ABC executives for caving in to government pressure and “censorship.”
“At some point you’ve got to stand for something,” Simmons said.
Seth Meyers on NBC opened his talk show Thursday with a warning of his own: Trump’s administration was “pursuing a crackdown on free speech.”
“And completely unrelated, I just wanted to say that I have always admired and respected Mr. Trump,” he snarked.
The New York Times reviewed hundreds of thousands of posts on X, along with commentary from radio, television and podcasts, and livestreams on YouTube and other websites, to reconstruct the origins of the outrage that exploded among conservatives over Jimmy Kimmel’s Monday night monologue.
As some prominent conservatives target both ordinary people and public figures for their comments about Charlie Kirk, they are trying to rebrand a practice they once maligned.
Erika Kirk said her husband aspired to “revive the American family.” Conservative activists wonder if Charlie Kirk’s legacy will lend new urgency to White House policy discussions.
Erika Kirk and her husband, Charlie, with one of their children in a photo that Mrs. Kirk posted on Instagram. Mr. Kirk embraced traditional gender roles with a directness that even some movement leaders described as a “shock to the system.”
The artificial intelligence boom, which has brought techies flocking back to the city, has fueled a resurgence of live — and sometimes futuristic — events.
As President Trump pulls back U.S. funding of the United Nations, countries like China, Russia and Qatar are seeking to influence the body’s work on human rights and labor.
U.S. funding cuts are straining the United Nations and giving Beijing an opening to strengthen its influence, at a fraction of the cost Washington once paid.
China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, along with his wife, Peng Liyuan, welcomed António Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations, in Beijing in 2024.
Login
