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."

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.

The UK's Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) is launching an appeal to help the thousands of people injured and displaced as a result of last week's powerful earthquake which struck Myanmar and the wider region.

Made up of 15 UK aid agencies, including the British Red Cross, Oxfam and Save the Children, the DEC is asking the British public for donations before the monsoon season arrives in two months.

More than 2,800 people have died and more than 4,500 have been injured, according to the leaders of Myanmar's military government, with figures expected to rise.

The charities say shelter, medicine, food, water and cash support is "urgently needed".

Baroness Chapman, minister for development, said public donations to the DEC appeal would be matched pound-for-pound by the government, up to the value of £5m.

DEC's chief executive Saleh Saeed said the situation was "ever more critical."

"Funds are urgently needed to help families access life-saving humanitarian aid following this catastrophe," he said.

Multiple international aid agencies and foreign governments have dispatched personnel and supplies to quake-hit regions.

• Inside Mandalay: BBC visits makeshift hospital treating earthquake victims in Myanmar

Myanmar was already facing a severe humanitarian crisis before the 7.7 magnitude earthquake due to the ongoing civil war there, with the DEC estimating a third of the population is in need of aid.

The country has been gripped by violence amid the conflict between the junta - which seized power in a 2021 coup - and ethnic militias and resistance forces across the country.

On Wednesday, Myanmar's military government announced a temporary ceasefire lasting until 22 April, saying it was aimed at expediting relief and reconstruction efforts.

Rebel groups had already unilaterally declared a ceasefire to support relief efforts earlier this week, but the military had refused to do the same until Wednesday's announcement.

Aid workers have come under attack in Myanmar. On Tuesday night, the army opened fire at a Chinese Red Cross convoy carrying earthquake relief supplies.

Nine of the charity's vehicles came under attack. The UN and some charities have accused the military junta of blocking access.

The US Geological Survey's modelling estimates Myanmar's death toll could exceed 10,000, while the cost in damages to infrastructure could surpass the country's annual economic output.

Roads, water services and buildings including hospitals have been destroyed, especially in Mandalay, the hard-hit city near the epicentre.

In Thailand, at least 21 people have died.

The Red Cross has also issued an urgent appeal for $100m (£77m), while the UN is seeking $8m in donations for its response.

"People urgently require medical care, clean drinking water, tents, food, and other basic necessities," the International Rescue Committee (IRC) said on Monday.

The DEC brings together 15 leading UK aid charities to provide and deliver aid to ensure successful appeals.

The appeal will be broadcast on the BBC and other media outlets throughout Thursday.

Councils are exposing homeless children to serious health and safeguarding risks by housing them in unsuitable temporary accommodation, an inquiry by MPs has found.

MPs said a "crisis in temporary accommodation" in England had left a record 164,000 children without a permanent home.

The inquiry concluded many children were living in "appalling conditions" and suffering significant impacts to their health and education as a result.

In a report, the MPs urged ministers to deliver more affordable homes and take urgent action to support families living in temporary accommodation.

In England, some local authorities have a legal duty to support the homeless, including providing temporary accommodation.

Temporary accommodation is meant as a short-term solution for those experiencing or at risk of homelessness and can include hostels and rooms in shared houses.

The inquiry was launched last year by MPs on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which condemned the state of some temporary accommodation as "utterly shameful".

The inquiry heard evidence of "egregious hazards" to children, including serious damp, mould, and mice infestations, and families living in temporary housing for years.

Florence Eshalomi, the Labour MP who leads the committee, told the BBC evidence showing the deaths of 74 children had been linked to temporary housing "should shock all of us".

"That should send alarm bells ringing," she said. "What was most shocking as well was the fact that over 58 of those young children were under the age of one. Where have we gone wrong?"

Eshalomi said when she was a child, she once lived in temporary accommodation filled with damp.

She said: "I think about what I went through as a young person and it pains me to think that many years later now as an MP, I see that still happening in the constituency I represent."

In its report, the committee set out recommendations, including requiring councils to check housing is safe to be used as temporary accommodation.

Another key recommendation was the proposal to give more powers to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, which investigates complaints about the treatment of people placed in temporary housing.

In response to the inquiry, a government spokesperson said the findings were shocking, adding that the government was taking "urgent action to fix the broken system we inherited, investing nearly £1bn in homelessness services this year to help families trapped in temporary accommodation".

They said: "Alongside this, we are developing a long-term strategy to tackle homelessness, driving up housing standards and delivering the biggest boost in social and affordable homes in a generation."

In extreme cases, the ombudsman can ask councils to compensate people whose complaints are upheld - and data shared with the BBC shows a marked rise in those payouts.

Last year, the ombudsman upheld 176 complaints against councils and recommended 144 payouts in those cases.

The number of payouts last year - some worth thousands of pounds - was greater than the 121 in 2022-23 and the 73 in 2021-22.

Sam Revell, a mum of three, received a payout of about £2,000 in 2023.

The ombudsman found multiple faults in the way Bromley Council in London handled her request for temporary accommodation in 2022.

Sam said she ended up homeless after separating from her partner and approached the council for help.

"I couldn't get hold of an actual person to speak to," Sam said. "All my emails just went unanswered."

At one stage, she and her children slept overnight in her car when they had nowhere else to go.

"I think the one thing as a parent, you just put a roof over your children's head," Sam said.

"That for me, is just basic, and I couldn't even do that. I got a good job. I was in full-time employment, and the kids were in school and everything."

The ombudsman said the council eventually placed them in unsuitable interim accommodation, which was too far from her children's school and her workplace.

"It was like 33 miles in total and it took us sort of an hour each way," Sam said.

Sam said the council did not take account of her child's need to continue attending the primary school where she received specialist support.

She said the flat itself was "horrendous" and claimed neighbours were regularly taking drugs near her front door.

The ombudsman said the council did not respond properly to Sam's reports about delays in getting repairs done in this accommodation and incidents when she was threatened and physically assaulted by neighbours.

Sam and her children were allocated alternative accommodation in September 2022 but she had to wait three months before she could move in.

She accused the council of leaving her "in such a vulnerable situation that it was just so dangerous" and said the experience still affects her children to this day.

A council spokesperson said a national housing shortage meant offering homeless residents temporary accommodation they "would have chosen for themselves".

The spokesperson said: "We accept that mistakes were made in this case and extend our apology to this resident, recognising the continued understandable disquiet this experience has had.

"It is important to note Bromley Council co-operated fully with the ombudsman's investigation, which was two years ago, and agreed with the proposed remedial action, which has been fully implemented and lessons have been learnt."

Cameron Black, a spokesman for the ombudsman, said the payouts recognise "the gravity of the injustice that's caused to the individuals in these cases".

He said there was a growing but small number of councils who are resistant to the ombudsman's findings and recommendations.

He said the ombudsman is calling for more powers to monitor whether councils are meeting their legal duties to support homeless people.

The rise in payouts comes as councils struggle to cover the costs of their legal duty to support the growing number of homeless families.

Local authorities spent around £2.29bn on temporary accommodation in 2023/24.

The Local Government Association said the scale of the challenge facing councils on temporary accommodation and homelessness "are immense".

"Government needs to use the upcoming Spending Review to ensure that councils are sufficiently resourced, including by urgently increasing the temporary accommodation subsidy," said Adam Hug, housing spokesperson for the LGA.

President Donald Trump has unveiled plans for sweeping new import taxes on all goods entering the US, in a watershed moment for global trade.

The plan sets a baseline tariff on all imports of at least 10%, consistent with a proposal Trump made on the campaign last year.

Items from countries that the White House described as the "worst offenders", including the European Union, China, Vietnam and Lesotho, would face far higher rates for what Trump said was payback for unfair trade policies.

Trump's move breaks with decades of American policy embracing free trade, and analysts said it was likely to lead to higher prices in the US and slower growth in the US and around the world.

The White House said officials would start charging the 10% tariffs on 5 April, with the higher duties starting on 9 April.

"It's our declaration of economic independence," Trump said in the White House Rose Garden against a backdrop of US flags.

• Live updates and reaction to Trump tariffs

The Republican president said the US had for years been "looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike".

"Today we are standing up for the American worker and we are finally putting America first," he said, calling it "one of the most important days, in my opinion, in American history."

On the campaign trail last year, Trump called for new tariffs that he said would raise money for the government and boost manufacturing, promising a new age of American prosperity.

He has spent weeks previewing Wednesday's announcement, which follows other orders raising tariffs on imports from China, foreign cars, steel and aluminium and some goods from Mexico and Canada.

The White House said the latest changes would not apply to Mexico and Canada, two of America's closest trading partners.

Goods from the UK are set to face a new 10% tariff, while import taxes on items from the European Union would go to 20%.

The charge for goods imported from China will be 34%, while it will be 24% for Japan, and 26% on India.

Some of the highest rates will be levied on smaller countries, with goods from the southern African nation of Lesotho facing 50%, while Vietnam and Cambodia will be hit with 46% and 49% respectively.

The latter two have both seen a rush of investment in recent years, as firms shifted supply chains away from China following Trump's first term.

Together the moves will bring effective tariff rates in the US to levels not seen in decades.

Trump also confirmed that a 25% tax on imports of all foreign-made cars, which he announced last week, would begin from midnight.

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.