Potentially “catastrophic” flash and river flooding is expected to continue as rain pummels the Central U.S. through Saturday, with the risk of more tornadoes.
President Javier Milei of Argentina, center right, at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., last year. Mr. Milei has repeatedly and publicly lauded President Trump.
The team that responds to requests at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been eliminated. We are trying to determine whether this is a governmentwide pattern.
The United States has steered an economic order for 80 years based on trade and trust, making the country the world’s financial superpower. That vision is now blurred.
Charges of antisemitism and liberal bias, and dismay over cuts to the opera budget, have led to a small mutiny at Chautauqua Institution. And this was after the attack on Salman Rushdie.
The company counts on the sale of devices for three-quarters of its nearly $400 billion in annual revenue, and it makes almost all of its iPhones, iPads and Macs overseas.
DA leader John Steenhuisen pictured with President Ramaphosa (L) and Deputy President Paul Mashatile (R) not long after their coalition was formed
South Africa's coalition government is on shaky ground, with the sharp divisions between its two biggest parties - the African National Congress (ANC) and Democratic Alliance (DA) - exposed in a crucial vote on the national budget.
The centre-right DA voted against the fiscal framework - a key part of the budget - after rejecting an increase in VAT, and demanding a cut in spending across all government departments.
The ANC, which positions itself as a centre-left party, refused to bow to what it called the DA's demand for an "austerity budget".
It demonstrated its political acumen by winning the support of a slew of smaller parties - both inside and outside government - to get the fiscal framework through parliament by 194 votes to 182.
The DA filed papers in court to challenge the vote, saying it was "procedurally flawed" while its top leadership is due to meet later to decide whether or not to remain in what South Africans call a government of national unity (GNU).
Professor William Gumede, an academic at Wits University's school of governance in Johannesburg, told the BBC it was unclear whether the DA would quit the government at this stage.
"It will be asking itself whether this is the tipping-point or whether it should wait - at least until the outcome of the court case," Prof Gumede said.
The coalition government was formed less than a year ago after the ANC lost its parliamentary majority in elections for the first time since Nelson Mandela led it to power in 1994 at the end of white-minority rule.
South Africa's business sector lobbied the two parties to enter into a coalition, seeing it as the best option to guarantee economic stability.
But hinting that the DA's participation was no longer certain, DA spokesman Willie Aucamp accused the ANC of a "serious infraction" and said the party had "crossed a line in the sand".
DA federal chair Helen Zille said the party would consider all its options, and not rush into a decsion.
"We know that being in a coalition requires compromise. You can't get it all. But the ANC also can't get it all, and they are refusing, point blank, to share power," Zille added.
The ANC took an equally tough stand, with its parliamentary chief whip, Mdumiseni Ntuli, accusing the DA of "complete betrayal" by breaking ranks with its partners in the GNU.
"The DA is a member, or was a member," Ntuli said.
"I don't know what is going to happen with them now, but the GNU remains," he added, referring to the fact that other parties in the 10-member coalition remain committed to it.
President Cyril Ramaphosa's spokesman Vincent Magwenya also threw down the gauntlet to the DA, saying: "You can't be part of a government whose budget you opposed."
The DA found itself voting alongside South Africa's two biggest, and most populist, opposition parties - former President Jacob Zuma's uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party and Julius Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).
Advocating the nationalisation of key sectors of the economy, these two parties are the impeccable foes of the pro-business DA.
But the three parties were united in opposing a VAT increase, believing it would hit the poor hard.
As DA leader John Steenhuisen put it: "The ANC is out of touch with the people, and if they bought their own groceries or filled their own tanks, they would know how expensive life already is."
But the ANC argued that a VAT increase - set at 0.5% this year and a further 0.5% next year - was necessary to raise revenue, and to offer public services such as health and education.
Crucially, the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) voted with the ANC, signalling the end of the alliance it formed with the DA in the build-up to the election in a failed bid to keep Ramaphosa's party out of power.
ActionSA - a small opposition party which broke away from the DA - helped the ANC clinch the vote.
It said it had reached a deal with the ANC that would see the VAT increase scrapped, while alternative ways of raising revenue for the government are explored.
"Yesterday's [Wednesday's] adoption of the report on the fiscal framework was merely one step in a multi-stage budgeting process before the final budget is approved," ActionSA said in a statement.
Getty Images
Prof Gumede says the DA has taken the opportunity to show "it is pro-poor"
Prof Gumede said the ANC would find it difficult to convince the public to pay more taxes when public services were crumbling.
"The optics don't look good for the ANC," he told the BBC.
"The DA has taken the budget as an opportunity to make a big impact, and to show it is pro-poor."
The dispute over the budget is the latest sign of the sharp differences between the two parties, with the DA also challenging in the courts three other pieces of legislation - including the land expropriation act.
This law was one of the issues that led to US President Donald Trump's administration cutting aid to South Africa.
The Trump administration has now imposed tariffs of 30% on all South African imports, in a move that is likely to be a huge blow to its already floundering economy.
"They have got some bad things going on in South Africa. You know, we are paying them billions of dollars, and we cut the funding because a lot of bad things are happening in South Africa," the US president said, before going on to name other countries.
In a statement, Ramaphosa's office condemned the new tariffs as "punitive", saying they could "serve as a barrier to trade and shared prosperity".
But for many South Africans, the tariffs signal the need for the two biggest parties to resolve their differences and work together - or risk seeing the nation sink into a deeper economic crisis at a time when the unemployment rate is already at more than 30%.
Spain won the 2023 Women's World Cup in Australia and New Zealand
Published
The United Kingdom is set to host the 2035 Women's World Cup after being the only valid bid received by Fifa, the organisation that runs international football.
Fifa has already stated that the tournament must be in Europe or Africa.
There was a suggestion that Spain alongside Portugal and Morocco might be putting a bid forward, but Fifa president Gianni Infantino said the UK's was the only valid one received.
Meanwhile, the United States are set to host the 2031 Women's World Cup.
"The path is there for the Women's World Cup in 2031 and 2035 to take place in some great nations and further boost the women's football movement," Gianni Infantino said.
In 2031, 48 teams are due to compete up from the 32 teams competing in the 2027 World Cup in Brazil.
Local media say Moscow's absence is "to the disappointment of many in the West"
One country that did not feature on Donald Trump's list of tariffs on US trade partners was Russia.
US outlet Axios quoted White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt as saying this was because existing US sanctions on Russia "preclude any meaningful trade" and noting that Cuba, Belarus and North Korea were also not included.
However, nations with even less trade with the US - such as Syria, which exported $11m of products last year according to UN data quoted by Trading Economics - were on the list.
The US imposed large-scale sanctions on Russia after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Trump has generally taken a friendlier approach to Russia since his return to the White House.
Last month, Trump threatened to impose a 50% tariff on countries buying Russian oil if Russian President Vladimir Putin did not agree to a ceasefire.
On Thursday, Russian media also argued that their country was not on the sweeping tariffs list because of existing sanctions.
"No tariffs have been imposed on Russia, but that's not because of some special treatment. It's simply because Western sanctions are already in place against our country," says state-run Rossiya 24 TV.
According to its sister channel Rossiya 1, Russia is missing from the list "to the disappointment of many in the West".
Many Kremlin-controlled media outlets have specifically referred to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who told Fox News: "Russia and Belarus, we don't trade with. They're sanctioned."
According to the Office of the US Trade Representative, the US imported goods from Russia worth $3.5bn (£2.7bn) in 2024. It mainly consisted of fertilisers, nuclear fuel and some metals, according to Trading Economics and Russian media.
Some of the Russian coverage has taken a mocking tone, with pro-Kremlin NTV saying Trump treated America's allies in Europe as "serfs" who only respond with "moaning".
Many, such as Zvezda TV which is run by Russia's defence ministry, note the inclusion of uninhabited Heard Island and McDonald Islands on the tariffs list.
"Looks like it's some penguins who will have to pay the 10% tariff," Zvezda said.
Ukraine, meanwhile, is facing a 10% tariff on its exports to the US.
The country's first deputy prime minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, said the new US tariff would mostly hit small producers.
She also said Ukraine was "working to secure better terms".
In 2024, Ukraine exported $874m (£642m) worth of goods to the US and imported $3.4bn from the US, according to the deputy prime minister.
"Ukraine has much to offer the United States as a reliable ally and partner," she added. "Fair tariffs benefit both countries."
Despite the small scale of trade, the US has provided significant material support for the war against Russia. Trump has argued that the US has spent $300-$350bn on such aid, while the US Department of Defense said $182.8bn had been "appropriated" - a figure that covers US military training in Europe and replenishment of US defence stocks - for Operation Atlantic Resolve.
The US has also been attempting to reach a deal for access to Ukrainian minerals as part of negotiations to end the war.
Trump’s tariffs erect a wall between Americans and other people — a wall that obstructs not only the flow of goods, but the flow of ideas, contacts, technology and friendships.
Trump’s tariffs erect a wall between Americans and other people — a wall that obstructs not only the flow of goods, but the flow of ideas, contacts, technology and friendships.
Trump said repeatedly that the tariffs are “reciprocal,” but that’s not true. The rates were calculated using a childish formula based on trade imbalances.
During the 30-minute meeting, Ms. Loomer excoriated National Security Council officials in front of the president and Michael Waltz, the national security adviser.
Trump said repeatedly that the tariffs are “reciprocal,” but that’s not true. The rates were calculated using a childish formula based on trade imbalances.
US President Donald Trump has imposed a 10% tariff on goods from most countries being imported into the US, with even higher rates for what he calls the "worst offenders".
But how exactly were these tariffs - essentially taxes on imports - worked out? BBC Verify has been looking at the calculations behind the numbers.
What were the calculations?
When Trump presented a giant cardboard chart detailing the tariffs in the White House Rose Garden it was initially assumed that the charges were based on a combination of existing tariffs and other trade barriers (like regulations).
But later, the White House published what might look like a complicated mathematical formula.
White House
The formula shared by the White House
But the actual exercise boiled down to simple maths: take the trade deficit for the US in goods with a particular country, divide that by the total goods imports from that country and then divide that number by two.
A trade deficit occurs when a country buys (imports) more physical products from other countries than it sells (exports) to them.
For example, the US buys more goods from China than it sells to them - there is a goods deficit of $295bn. The total amount of goods it buys from China is $440bn.
Dividing 295 by 440 gets you to 67% and you divide that by two and round up. Therefore the tariff imposed on China is 34%.
Similarly, when it applied to the EU, the White House's formula resulted in a 20% tariff.
Are the Trump tariffs 'reciprocal'?
Many commentators have pointed out that these tariffs are not reciprocal.
Reciprocal would mean they were based on what countries already charge the US in the form of existing tariffs, plus non-tariff barriers (things like regulations that drive up costs).
But the White House's official methodology document makes clear that they have not calculated this for all the countries on which they have imposed tariffs.
Instead the tariff rate was calculated on the basis that it would eliminate the US's goods trade deficit with each country.
Trump has broken away from the formula in imposing tariffs on countries that buy more goods from the US than they sell to it.
For example the US does not currently run goods trade deficit with the UK. Yet the UK has been hit with a 10% tariff.
In total, more than 100 countries are covered by the new tariff regime.
'Lots of broader impacts'
Trump believes the US is getting a bad deal in global trade. In his view, other countries flood US markets with cheap goods - which hurts US companies and costs jobs. At the same time, these countries are putting up barriers that make US products less competitive abroad.
So by using tariffs to eliminate trade deficits, Trump hopes to revive US manufacturing and protect jobs.
Reuters
The US car industry is one of the manufacturing sectors Trump is keen to revive
But will this new tariff regime achieve the desired outcome?
BBC Verify has spoken to a number of economists. The overwhelming view is that while the tariffs might reduce the goods deficit between the US and individual countries, they will not reduce the overall deficit between the US and rest of the world.
"Yes, it will reduce bilateral trade deficits between the US and these countries. But there will obviously be lots of broader impacts that are not captured in the calculation", says Professor Jonathan Portes of King's College, London.
That's because the US' existing overall deficit is not driven solely by trade barriers, but by how the US economy works.
For one, Americans spend and invest more than they earn and that gap means the US buys more from the world than it sells. So as long as that continues, the US may continue to keep running a deficit despite increasing tariffs with it global trading partners.
Some trade deficits can also exist for a number of legitimate reasons - not just down to tariffs. For example, buying food that is easier or cheaper to produce in other countries' climates.
Thomas Sampson of the London School of Economics said: "The formula is reverse engineered to rationalise charging tariffs on countries with which the US has a trade deficit. There is no economic rationale for doing this and it will cost the global economy dearly."
The UK government is launching a consultation with businesses on how taking retaliatory tariff measures against the US would impact them.
It comes after US President Donald Trump announced new tariffs of 10% on all UK imports.
The government has previously said it would not be rushed into a knee-jerk response to Trump's imposition of tariffs on its trading partners around the world while insisting all options were on the table.
But in a toughening of this stance, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told MPs he would "seek the views of UK stakeholders over four weeks until 1 May 2025 on products that could be potentially included in any UK tariff response".
He said talks were ongoing with the US government to secure an economic deal aimed at avoiding or reducing tariffs but warned that the UK "reserves the right to take any action we deem necessary if a deal is not secured".
In the event of reaching a deal with the US, the consultation with businesses would be paused, he added.
Speaking in the House of Commons, he said the fact the US had put lower tariffs on the UK compared to other countries "vindicated the pragmatic approach the government has taken". However, he said he was "disappointed" by the increase.
Conservative shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith questioned Reynolds' claim that the government's approach had been "vindicated".
"The government got no special favours," he said noting that the UK was facing the same tariffs as more than 125 other countries and territories including the Congo and the Christmas Islands.
He said the EU was being hit by 20% tariffs and the UK's lower rate of 10% was actually a vindication of those who "were pilloried and abused" for backing Brexit.
"They [Labour] should regret the 48 times they voted to stay in Europe and thank us for getting Brexit done."
Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper said Trump was telling the UK he would only lower tariffs "if you lower your standards".
"If the government gives in to Trump's threats it will only encourage him to use the same bullying tactics again and again."
She reiterated her party's call for an "economic coalition of the willing" against the tariffs.
In addition to the 10% tariffs, a 25% tariff has been put on UK car exports, as well as steel and aluminium products.
The UK exported almost £60bn worth of goods to the US last year, mainly machinery, cars and pharmaceuticals.
The government's official forecaster estimates a worst-case scenario trade war could reduce UK economic growth by 1% and wipe out the £9.9bn of economic headroom Chancellor Rachel Reeves gave herself at last week's Spring Statement.
It could mean that in order to meet her own fiscal rules, she would have to raise taxes or make cuts to government spending.
Login
