Bradley Murdoch, the Australian man convicted of murdering British backpacker Peter Falconio in 2001, has died.

Murdoch, 67, was serving a life sentence at a prison in Alice Springs, in Australia's Northern Territory.

He was being treated at hospital in Alice Springs in recent weeks for terminal throat cancer.

The Northern Territory Department of Corrections told the BBC there had been a death of a man in custody.

In 2005, Murdoch was convicted of murdering Mr Falconio, but had never revealed the location of his body.

Mr Falconio was shot dead on a remote stretch of highway near the Northern Territory town of Barrow Creek, about 300km (186 miles) north of Alice Springs in July 2001.

The 28-year-old was travelling around Australia with his girlfriend, Joanne Lees, also from the UK, at the time.

Murdoch was also convicted of the attempted kidnap and assault of Ms Lees, who managed to escape by hiding in outback scrub for several hours before she was able to signal for help.

Murdoch was 43 when he committed the crimes.

The ordeal partly inspired the 2001 horror film Wolf Creek.

Last month police in Australia announced a new reward of up to A$500,000 (£240,000) for information leading to the discovery of the remains of the murdered British backpacker.

Acting Commander Mark Grieve of Northern Territory Police told a press conference in late June: "Police still hold out hope that someone might be able to provide some vital information to assist in this search."

"We recognise the passage of time that has transpired but it is never to late to reach out and start that conversation with police," Grieve said.

He said in that press conference police had "made numerous approaches" to Murdoch, including in June, but said that "unfortunately... on all occasions he has chosen not to engage with police".

Acting Commander Grieve said he wanted to "try and at least bring some sliver of resolution to Peter's family by bringing home his remains" - and said they had spoken to family about the reward.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on X to get the latest alerts.

Donald Trump's former national security adviser Mike Waltz has faced scrutiny from US senators over his role in a sensitive Signal group chat in which officials discussed sensitive war plans.

Waltz appeared before a hearing on Tuesday seeking Senate confirmation as Trump's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, following his removal from his former post in May.

Under questioning from Democrats, Waltz maintained he did not share classified information in the chat, which accidentally included a journalist.

The March incident, which became known as "Signalgate", threw the White House into turmoil and sparked a debate about the administration's cybersecurity.

Waltz convened the group chat on Signal that also included Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as well as several other top administration officials to discuss an imminent strike on the Houthi rebel group in Yemen.

The editor-in-chief of the Atlantic magazine, Jeffery Goldberg, was also added to the highly sensitive chat and ultimately reported on his participation, and the chat's contents.

Amid the fallout, Waltz appeared on Fox News to take "full responsibility" for building the group chat, adding that it was "embarrassing". Waltz and the White House have maintained no classified information was shared in the chat.

Waltz was removed from his post in May by Trump who nominated him for US ambassador to the UN.

Despite opposition from some Democrats, he will likely be confirmed since Republicans hold a majority in the US Senate.

At the hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, said he hoped to hear Waltz express "regret over sharing what was very sensitive, timely information about a military strike on a commercially available app."

Signal was not "an appropriate, secure means of communicating highly sensitive information," Senator Coons said.

"That engagement was driven by and recommended by the Cyber Security Infrastructure Security Agency, by the Biden administration," Waltz responded. He argued that the use of Signal was "not only authorised" but "highly recommended."

"This was demonstrably sensitive information," Senator Coons said, and asked Waltz if he was investigated for the expansion of the Signal group to include a journalist.

"The White House conducted an investigation and my understanding is the Department of Defence is still conducting an investigation," Waltz responded.

Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, also asked Waltz whether the Pentagon investigations into Secretary Hegseth were ongoing.

Waltz responded that he should not, and could not, comment on an ongoing investigation but maintained no classified information was shared.

In contrast, Waltz's fellow Republicans on the committee largely avoided the Signal matter, instead focusing on US funding to the United Nations and asking how he would engage with China's rising influence.

Senator Rick Scott, a Florida Republican who once served alongside Waltz in the US House of Representatives, called him a "man of integrity, grit, and principle."

Waltz's nomination to be the US's lead envoy at the UN comes amid international uncertainty about America's role on the world stage and the strength of its commitments to foreign allies.

The position would play a key role in representing US interests abroad at a time when the Trump administration has slashed billions in foreign aid and fired thousands of staffers at the State Department and US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Senator Mike Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, asked Waltz about his "commitment to reviewing every dollar going to the UN to ensure our taxpayer dollars are being used wisely."

In response, Waltz listed a series of international organisations and projects that he said the US helped fund that he believed deserved review, including several climate-focused entities like the UN Environment Programme, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, and more.

"I think it is incumbent on this administration to say, what's it doing, is it making us safer, stronger, and more prosperous, and are we getting enough bang for our buck," Waltz said.

The past weeks have put serious pressure on Tim Davie's leadership. Today, I saw that up close.

For a usually very slick performer, he looked shaken. I wanted to know if he had considered resigning in the face of the recent controversies. He said he had not, but admitted it had been "a very, very tough time".

Earlier Davie had launched the BBC's annual report on Zoom, with journalists remotely asking questions in the Q&A box and no cameras allowed into the room for us to record and use his answers.

We were considering making clear to our audiences that - on such an important day for the BBC - nobody from the top of the corporation was being put in front of a camera to be interviewed on a range of issues, which were both of public interest and specifically relevant to licence fee payers.

Hours later, Mr Davie agreed to a face-to-face interview, which took place just after it was announced that the BBC and Banijay UK were not renewing John Torode's contract as MasterChef presenter.

I usually interview the director general at times of crisis for the BBC. That's the way these things work. To be fair to him, he always makes it clear that my job is to ask him questions without fear or favour. He knows part of his job is to be held to account.

But it's been a very bumpy time, even by BBC standards. The Gaza documentary with a child narrator who later turned out to be the son of a Hamas official, another film about doctors in Gaza pulled before transmission, issues around the BBC livestreaming the punk duo Bob Vylan's set at Glastonbury and the growing controversy surrounding MasterChef - all land at his door.

His leadership has been called into question, not least recently by the culture secretary. She called it a "series of catastrophic failures".

'I felt pressure'

It was obvious today it had been taking its toll. As director general, he's insistent and wholehearted in his defence of the BBC and his role leading that. But as a man, you can sense the last weeks have been testing.

His interview style is to look straight at the person doing the interview. He usually measures his words carefully, although today, on a couple of points he was a little less fluent. Some of his answers - for example when he was talking about he and his team making "clear, strong decisions" in the face of challenges - sounded a bit rehearsed.

However, an unexpected by-product of him sounding less confident was that he also managed to sound, at times, more human. The last week has clearly left him frustrated and for once, he let that show. There was no hiding it when he said rather plainly: "I felt pressure".

It brings to mind the recent public debate about Rachel Reeves and her tears in the Commons. Whatever we think of the decisions made by those in public service, what impact does it have on them as people when they are under such intense scrutiny. Should that even matter?

But they don't call him Teflon Tim for nothing - and he survives, for the moment. Even if he is wounded.

The BBC today was signalling it is getting a grip on bad behaviour in the workplace. It's something Samir Shah, chairman of the BBC, promised after the Huw Edwards scandal.

Now Gregg Wallace is gone, John Torode is gone. Three staff members have been asked to "step back" from their roles after Glastonbury. And we've now learnt that several people have been sacked in light of the BBC's culture review.

The clear messaging: Teflon Tim and his team are getting tough.

It has been more than three years since a British official inadvertently leaked a dataset containing the names and contact details of thousands of people who were attempting to flee possible Taliban revenge attacks.

In April 2024, the government began relocating some of them to the UK - but we are only learning this now because extraordinary lengths were gone to in order to prevent the breach and subsequent response coming to light.

As the full picture is finally disclosed to the public, these are the questions still facing Britain's security establishment.

What can be done about the danger of leaks?

It has happened before and it will doubtless happen again.

Think Wikileaks, Snowden and all the countless cyber-hacks and ransomware suffered by companies on an almost daily basis.

Data leaks are not new but sometimes – and it is quite possible that this is one of those times – they can be life-threatening.

The revelations that have come to light will have sent a chill down the spine of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Afghans who fear retribution by the Taliban.

For those already spirited out to Britain, it means they can probably never go back home as long as the Taliban are in power.

For the 600 former Afghan government soldiers and their estimated 1,800 dependants still in Afghanistan, the news will mean they are unlikely to breathe easily until the UK delivers on its promise to get them safely out.

It's important to bear in mind that all this was not the result of some deliberate, sophisticated cyber attack by a state-backed hacking group.

It evolved from an unintentional mistake made by just one individual working for the Ministry of Defence.

What does this say about Britain's moral responsibility?

UK forces were deployed to Afghanistan, alongside US and Nato allies, over a period of almost 20 years, from October 2001 to August 2021.

During this time they worked closely with their Afghan government allies, relying heavily on their local knowledge and expertise.

The most sensitive area was in Special Forces (SF), for whom the Taliban reserved a particular hatred.

When Kabul and the rest of Afghanistan fell to the Taliban in the summer of 202, there was a realisation that those now-former Afghan SF soldiers and their families were a priority for relocation to safety.

But thousands more Afghans also risked their lives to work with the British over those two decades.

Many did it out of patriotism, believing they were working to secure a better Afghanistan.

Some did it for the money, some did it because they trusted Britain to safeguard their lives and their personal details.

A data breach like this now threatens to undermine any future promises by a British official who says: "Trust us, your data is safe with us."

Was there a cover-up?

When this "unauthorised data breach" was finally discovered, a full 18 months after it occurred, the UK government obtained what is known as a super-injunction, preventing its publication by the media.

A super-injunction is so draconian that it means you cannot even report the fact that you cannot report it.

That measure has only just been lifted now, following an independent review.

There is a logical case to be made that this measure was necessary to protect the lives of those affected by the data breach.

However, questions are now being raised about whether the injunction - applied for by the previous, Conservative government - might also have been for political purposes.

The High Court judge who lifted the super-injunction, Mr Justice Chamberlain, said that it had "had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability which operate in a democracy".

The chancellor has told the financial industry it must change the "negative" narrative around savers investing money in stocks and shares in order to help grow the economy.

In a speech, Rachel Reeves said: "For too long, we have presented investment in too negative a light, quick to warn people of the risks without giving proper weight to the benefits."

The government is working with the financial regulator to provide support for would-be investors.

It comes as Reeves stepped back from cutting the tax-free limit on cash Individual Savings Accounts (Isas) after a backlash from lenders - she is keen to shift some of the £300bn in these accounts to being invested in the UK and its companies.

At the annual Mansion House dinner in the City of London, Reeves told business leaders: "Our tangled system of financial advice and guidance has meant that people cannot get the right support to make decisions for themselves."

She said the government is consulting with the Financial Conduct Authority "to introduce a brand-new type of targeted support for consumers ahead of the new financial year".

The government is under pressure to ignite growth after figures revealed the UK economy shrank in May following a contraction in April.

Meanwhile, U-turns on welfare benefits and the winter fuel allowance have stoked speculation there could be tax rises in the Budget later this year.

Reeves said the new measures would help "boost retail investment so that more savers can reap the benefits of UK economic success".

But the value of investments in assets such as shares can go down as well as up, and savers have tended to be cautious over the risks involved, although the spending power of savings can be eroded by rising prices.

The government has in the past encouraged the public to buy shares in UK companies, including in 2013 when Royal Mail was floated on the London Stock Exchange.

But perhaps the most famous example was in 1986, when the state-owned British Gas was privatised and Margaret Thatcher's government launched the "tell Sid" campaign. TV adverts featured characters urged each other to "tell Sid" about the chance to buy shares in British Gas.

In reference to her recent travails - including a tearful appearance in the House of Commons - Reeves said that during a visit to a school, a girl had asked her what job she would do if she could have any job in the world.

"Given the events of the last few weeks, I suspect many of you would sympathise if I had said "anything but chancellor"," she joked with the audience. "But I didn't."

In her speech, Reeves said she would "continue to consider further changes to ISAs, engaging widely over the coming months".

She also provided more details about changes to the UK's financial services sector including reforming regulation.

"In too many areas, regulation still acts as a boot on the neck of businesses," she said. "Choking off the enterprise and innovation that is the lifeblood of growth."

She said regulators in other sectors "must take up the call I make this evening not to bend to the temptation of excessive caution but to boldly regulate for growth in the service of prosperity across our country".

US President Donald Trump said he has settled on another tariff deal - this time with Indonesia.

Trump said he had agreed to lower tariffs he had threatened on goods entering the US from Indonesia country to 19%, in exchange for what he called "full access" for American firms.

Terms of the deal were not immediately confirmed by the southeast Asian country, which boasts a small but growing trade relationship with the US.

The pact is the latest to emerge after the White House unveiled a barrage of tariffs this spring, kicking off a flurry of trade talks over the duties.

After suspending his most aggressive tariff plans from earlier this year, Trump this month renewed his threats, sending warning letters to dozens of countries that he intended to start charging high tariffs from 1 August.

His targets included all of America's biggest trade partners, including the European Union, Canada, Mexico, Japan and South Korea.

Indonesia also received a letter from Trump last week outlining plans for a 32% tariff on its goods, reportedly bewildering officials who had thought a deal was close.

Trump said on Tuesday he had reduced that rate after a phone call with the president of Indonesia.

He said as part of the deal, Indonesia had agreed to lower its trade tariffs for products from the US.

"They are going to pay 19% and we are going to pay nothing ... we will have full access into Indonesia," he said in remarks to reporters.

The country has also agreed to purchase $15bn worth in US energy, $4.5bn in American agricultural products and 50 Boeing jets, he later wrote on social media.

Those figures are lower than those outlined in a trade deal Reuters had reported earlier this month was expected to be signed.

As well as Indonesia, the administration has announced agreements with just the UK, China and Vietnam. In all three of those cases, the deals left high US tariffs in place while key issues and terms went unconfirmed or unresolved.

Everett Eissenstat, a partner at Squire Patton Boggs whose served as an economic adviser during the first Trump administration, said he expected the White House to unveil more deals in the coming weeks, while noting that many countries appeared to have lowered their expectations of what they hope to achieve.

He pointed to recent comments on Tuesday by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, which raised the possibility that the country might accept tariffs at levels once considered unthinkable.

"The tone is changing a lot," he said.

Severance, The Penguin, and The White Lotus lead the nominations for this year's Emmy TV awards.

Britt Lower, Quinta Brunson, Harrison Ford and Jeremy Allen White are among the stars competing for the top prizes for acting.

The Studio, The Bear, Abbott Elementary and Shrinking are among the contenders in the comedy categories.

The best TV shows and actors of the past year will be honoured at the awards ceremony in Los Angeles on 14 September.

Here is the full list of nominees announced on Tuesday.

The most nominated shows

The most nominated shows

27 - Severance

24 - The Penguin

23 - The White Lotus

23 - The Studio

16 - The Last of Us

14 - Andor

14 - Hacks

Major categories

Outstanding drama series

• Andor (Disney+)
• The Diplomat (Netflix)
• The Last of Us (HBO Max)
• Paradise (Hulu)
• The Pitt (HBO Max)
• Severance (Apple TV+)
• Slow Horses (Apple TV+)
• The White Lotus (HBO Max)

Outstanding comedy series

• Abbott Elementary (ABC)
• The Bear (Hulu)
• Hacks (HBO Max)
• Nobody Wants This (Netflix)
• Only Murders in the Building (Hulu)
• Shrinking (Apple TV+)
• The Studio (Apple TV+)
• What We Do in the Shadows (Hulu)

Outstanding limited or anthology series

• Adolescence (Netflix)
• Black Mirror (Netflix)
• Dying for Sex (Hulu)
• Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story (Netflix)
• The Penguin (HBO Max)

Outstanding lead actor in a drama series

• Sterling K Brown - Paradise (Hulu)
• Gary Oldman - Slow Horses (Apple TV+)
• Pedro Pascal - The Last of Us (HBO Max)
• Adam Scott - Severance (Apple TV+)
• Noah Wyle - The Pitt (HBO Max)

Outstanding lead actress in a drama series

• Kathy Bates - Matlock (CBS)
• Sharon Horgan - Bad Sisters (Apple TV+)
• Britt Lower - Severance (Apple TV+)
• Bella Ramsey - The Last of Us (HBO Max)
• Keri Russell - The Diplomat (Netflix)

Outstanding lead actor in a comedy series

• Adam Brody - Nobody Wants This (Netflix)
• Seth Rogen - The Studio (Apple TV+)
• Jason Segel - Shrinking (Apple TV+)
• Martin Short - Only Murders in the Building (Hulu)
• Jeremy Allen White - The Bear (Hulu)

Outstanding lead actress in a comedy series

• Uzo Aduba - The Residence (Netflix)
• Kristen Bell - Nobody Wants This (Netflix)
• Quinta Brunson - Abbott Elementary (ABC)
• Ayo Edebiri - The Bear (Hulu)
• Jean Smart - Hacks (HBO Max)

Outstanding lead actor in a limited or anthology series or movie

• Colin Farrell - The Penguin (HBO Max)
• Stephen Graham - Adolescence (Netflix)
• Jake Gyllenhaal - Presumed Innocent (Apple TV+)
• Bryan Tyree Henry - Dope Thief (Apple TV+)
• Cooper Koch - Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story (Netflix)

Outstanding lead actress in a limited or anthology series or movie

• Cate Blanchett - Disclaimer (Apple TV+)
• Meghan Fehy - Sirens (Netflix)
• Rashidah Jones - Black Mirror (Netflix)
• Cristin Milioti - The Penguin (HBO Max)
• Michelle Williams - Dying for Sex (Hulu)

Outstanding supporting actor in a drama series

• Zach Cherry - Severance (Apple TV+)
• Walton Goggins - The White Lotus (HBO Max)
• Jason Isaacs - The White Lotus (HBO Max)
• James Marsden - Paradise (Hulu)
• Sam Rockwell -The White Lotus (HBO Max)
• Tramell Tillman - Severance (Apple TV+)
• John Turturro - Severance (Apple TV+)

Outstanding supporting actress in a drama series

• Patricia Arquette - Severance (Apple TV+)
• Carrie Coon - The White Lotus (HBO Max)
• Katherine LaNasa - The Pitt (HBO Max)
• Julianne Nicholson - Paradise (Hulu)
• Parker Posey - The White Lotus (HBO Max)
• Natasha Rothwell - The White Lotus (HBO Max)
• Aimee Lou Wood - The White Lotus (HBO Max)

Outstanding supporting actor in a comedy series

• Ike Barinholtz - The Studio (Apple TV+)
• Colman Domingo - The Four Seasons (Netflix)
• Harrison Ford - Shrinking (Apple TV+)
• Jeff Hiller - Somebody Somewhere (HBO Max)
• Ebon Moss-Bachrach - The Bear (Hulu)
• Michael Urie - Shrinking (Apple TV+)
• Bowen Yang - Saturday Night Live (NBC)

Outstanding supporting actress in a comedy series

• Liza Colón-Zayas - The Bear (Hulu)
• Hannah Einbinder - Hacks (HBO Max)
• Kathryn Hahn - The Studio (Apple TV+)
• Janelle James - Abbott Elementary (ABC)
• Catherine O'Hara - The Studio (Apple TV+)
• Sheryl Lee Ralph - Abbott Elementary (ABC)
• Jessica Williams - Shrinking (Apple TV+)

Outstanding supporting actor in a limited or anthology series or movie

• Javier Bardem - Monsters: The Lyle And Erik Menendez Story (Netflix)
• Bill Camp - Presumed Innocent (Apple TV+)
• Owen Cooper - Adolescence (Netflix)
• Rob Delaney - Dying For Sex (Hulu)
• Peter Sarsgaard - Presumed Innocent (Apple TV+)
• Ashley Walters - Adolescence (Netflix)

Outstanding supporting actress in a limited or anthology series or movie

• Erin Doherty - Adolescence (Netflix)
• Ruth Negga - Presumed Innocent (Apple TV+)
• Deirdre O'Connell - The Penguin (HBO Max)
• Chloë Sevigny - Monsters: The Lyle And Erik Menendez Story (Netflix)
• Jenny Slate - Dying For Sex (Hulu)
• Christine Tremarco - Adolescence (Netflix)

Outstanding reality competition programme

• The Amazing Race (CBS)
• RuPaul's Drag Race (MTV)
• Survivor (CBS)
• Top Chef (Bravo)
• The Traitors (NBC)

Outstanding talk series

• The Daily Show (Comedy Central)
• Jimmy Kimmel Live! (ABC)
• The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (CBS)

France's Prime Minister François Bayrou has proposed cutting two public holidays as part of a 2026 budget proposal to slash overall spending while also increasing defence expenses.

Bayrou suggested axing Easter Monday and 8 May, a day that commemorates the Allied victory at the end of World War Two in Europe.

He said the various bank holidays had turned the month of May into a gruyère - a Swiss cheese full of holes - although he added he was open to other suggestions.

Bayrou runs the risk of having his budget voted down in parliament in the autumn, which could eventually cause his government to collapse.

But on Tuesday he stressed that France - the eurozone's second economy - was "in mortal danger" of being crushed by debt.

Standing in front of a lectern emblazoned with the words "The moment of truth", Bayrou spoke for over an hour outlining a series of daring measures that he said should bring the annual budget deficit under control.

These include a freeze on public spending for next year, ending tax breaks for the wealthy and a reduction in the number of civil servants.

The budget also needs to factor in President Emmanuel Macron's call for France's defence spending to rise by €3.5bn (£3bn) next year and then by a further €3bn in 2027.

But the proposal to cut the two May public holidays was the most eye-catching suggestion. Bayrou said Easter Monday had "no religious significance", and the whole nation had to work and produce more.

His idea made headlines immediately - and drew condemnation from several sides.

The far-right National Rally (RN) party damned it as an attack on French history and on French workers, while Green party leader Marine Tondelier lamented that the day that commemorated victory against Nazism would no longer be a holiday.

Pressed by reporters after his speech, Bayrou said his proposal was "basic arithmetic".

"If we want to stay on course, we need to find more than €40bn," Bayrou argued, referring to the €43.8bn France needs to slash from its budget to rein in debt, which he said grows by €5,000 every second.

The French government aims to bring the deficit down from 5.8% last year to below 4.6% next year and to under 3% by 2029, Bayrou said.

The embattled centrist prime minister has only been in the job since December, following on from the short-lived premiership of Michel Barnier.

Barnier's government used executive powers to push his own bill that sought to rein in France's deficit through an even harsher budget than Bayrou's.

The move proved unacceptable to the National Rally and left-wing parties, which all voted against Barnier, causing the government to collapse through a no-confidence vote for the first time since 1962.

The same factions are now threatening to do it again when Bayrou's budget is put to a vote in the autumn.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon of the radical left France Unbowed (LFI) said that the PM had to be ousted, while RN leader Marine Le Pen accused Bayrou of preferring to "attack the French, workers and pensioners, instead of slashing wastage", and vowed to bring him down "if he doesn't revise his plans".

But Bayrou said his government "wanted to change things" to restore public finances and would do so "despite the risk" of a no-confidence vote.

Since last summer's surprise snap election the French parliament has been deeply divided into three blocs that have resisted working together. Another election may well result in a similar deadlock.

If Bayrou's government collapses President Macron will have to choose a successor or appoint an unelected technocrat government - neither of which would be palatable to MPs.

His own popularity is under 25% and there has been a clamour for him to step down sooner than the end of his second term in 2027 - something he has consistently resisted.

President Donald Trump was "merely asking a question" when he asked the Ukrainian president whether the country could strike Moscow, the White House says.

Citing anonymous sources, the Financial Times reported that Trump on 4 July had privately encouraged Ukraine to escalate strikes on Russia if the US provided long-range weapons.

But Trump was "merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing. He's working tirelessly to stop the killing and end this war", White House told the BBC in a statement.

On Monday, Trump announced he would send weapons to Ukraine and warned of more tariffs on Russia if the country did not come to a ceasefire deal with Ukraine in 50 days.

• 'Not our war' - Trump's Nato weapons deal for Ukraine sparks MAGA anger
• Trump threatens Russia with tariffs while unveiling Ukraine weapons plan
• Ukrainians unimpressed by Trump's 50-day ultimatum to Putin

The president said the US would impose 100% secondary tariffs targeting Russia's remaining trade partners if a peace deal with Ukraine was not reached in that timeline.

Among the weapons involved in the latest deal, Trump said "everything" including defensive Patriot missiles, though the exact details are not yet known.

Trump told the BBC on Monday that he was "disappointed" in Russian President Vladimir Putin. "But I'm not done with him," he added.

Trump also said he was "working at" getting Putin to put an end to killing in Ukraine.

"We'll have a great conversation. I'll say: 'That's good, I'll think we're close to getting it done,' and then he'll knock down a building in Kyiv."

In recent weeks, Russia has escalated its drone and missile attacks in Ukraine, killing more than 230 civilians in June, according to the United Nations - the largest number killed in a month during the three years of war.

Trump's question to Ukrainian President Vlodomyr Zelensky about whether the country could strike Moscow came a day after a "bad" call between the US president and Putin, according to the Financial Times.

"Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? . . . Can you hit St Petersburg too?" Trump asked on a separate call with Zelensky after, the outlet reported.

Ukraine has Ukraine struck several targets deep inside Russia this year with missiles provided by the US and the UK.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has pledged to end Russia's war in Ukraine.

But the promise has proven more complicated than expected, and Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with the Russian leader and the lack of progress in ending the conflict.

Two rounds of ceasefire talks between Russia and Ukraine took place earlier this year but no other meetings have been scheduled.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday that Trump's pledge to raise tariffs and send weapons to Ukraine was seen "not as a signal for peace but as a signal to continue the war".