South Korea's president has been removed from office after the Constitutional Court voted unanimously to uphold his impeachment.

Yoon Suk Yeol was suspended from duty in December after being impeached by parliament, following his failed attempt to impose martial law.

The ruling on Friday was met with tears of joy and sadness among Yoon's critics and supporters, who had gathered in various parts of Seoul to watch the verdict live.

A snap election to vote for Yoon's replacement must be held by 3 June.

What next for South Korea?

After months of anxiously waiting, South Koreans have some badly needed closure. The country can now start to repair and move forward, the first step being to elect a new leader.

But the crisis Yoon has unleashed is far from over. Although his military takeover only lasted six hours, the political fallout has only intensified with each month that has passed.

The night of 3 December, when Yoon ordered troops to storm parliament, changed something in South Korea's psyche. It reawakened the ghosts of the country's violent, dictatorial past, showing people that martial law was not, as most had assumed, consigned to history.

Many are still upset by what happened that night, and afraid that the threat of martial law could be brandished again by future zealous politicians.

Today's verdict therefore came as a relief to most, who cheered on the streets of Seoul as the verdict was read out. It is a victory for South Korea's democracy, that for a while looked as if it was on dangerous ground.

The constitutional court was damning in its criticism of Yoon's authoritarian power grab, as all eight judges voted to remove him from office.

In upholding his impeachment, Moon Hyung-bae, acting president of the eight-men bench, said Yoon's short-lived military takeover was not justified, and that he had "[gone] against the people he was supposed to protect".

He added that the implementation of martial law "damaged people's basic political rights" and "violated the principles of the rule of law and democracy".

Already, there are serious calls to change South Korea's constitution – to strengthen its institutions and limit the powers of the president - to guard against this happening again. However, it will take a particularly patriotic future president to sign off on reducing their own authority.

South Korea more polarised than ever

As Yoon leaves office, he leaves behind not just a shaken country, but a divided one. In the aftermath of that shocking December night, South Koreans were mostly united in their disgust for the president and what he had attempted to do.

But Yoon showed no remorse. He dug in, fought his trial at every step, and continued to dangle the same unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that he used to justify his military takeover.

He claimed that the country and his political opposition had been infiltrated by North Korean and Chinese spies, and that these "anti-state forces" had rigged past elections.

Gradually more and more people believed him. Through his belligerence, Yoon has turned himself into a political martyr for many – the victim of an establishment that has been overrun by "communists".

His conspiracy theories have firmly taken root, and far-right extremism is flourishing. Thousands protest every week in the centre of Seoul. They were on the streets on Friday, and will be there again Saturday, claiming the country's politicians and judges are corrupt and elections are rigged.

And these are not fringe views.

More than a third of people now say they do not trust the Constitutional Court while delivered Yoon's verdict; more than a quarter do not trust the voting system.

Within this climate of distrust, South Korea must head to the polls. Yoon's successor needs to be chosen in the next 60 days. These days are sure to be fraught and even more divisive. Many may not to accept the result that comes.

Yet South Korea urgently needs a new leader who can advocate for the country as whole, having been without one for months.

It quickly needs to figure out how to deal with President Trump, having started on the backfoot. His 25% tariffs on cars and steel have dealt Seoul, and its ailing economy, an early a blow, but many believe worse is coming; that it is only time until Mr Trump turns his gaze to the Korean peninsula, and when he does he will try to force South Korea to pay more for its defence and cut a deal with Seoul's arch enemy, Kim Jong Un.

Yoon's legal team has accused the court of politicising the ruling.

"The whole process of this trial itself was not lawful and unfair," said one of his lawyers, Yoon Gap-geun.

"I feel regrettable that this completely is a political decision," he said.

But politicians are calling for unity, asking everyone to accept this verdict, so South Korea can at least start to move on.

Yoon's political party, the PPP, has conceded, but Yoon himself has not. In a statement he apologised to his supporters for his "shortcomings" without mentioning the ruling.

"I am truly sorry and regretful that I could not live up to your expectations," he said.

"It has been a great honor to serve the Republic of Korea. I am deeply grateful to all of you who supported and encouraged me, despite my many shortcomings," he said.

He cannot appeal, as the decision was made by South Korea's top court. But, having repeatedly vowed to fight to the end, he could still refuse to go quietly.

How did we get here?

In an unprecedented televised announcement on 3 December, Yoon said he was invoking martial law to protect the country from "anti-state" forces that sympathised with North Korea.

At the time, the embattled leader was in a deadlock over a budget bill, dogged by corruption scandals and several of his cabinet ministers were under investigation.

Less than two hours after Yoon's declaration, 190 lawmakers who gathered, including some from Yoon's party, voted to overturn it.

Yoon was impeached by parliament and suspended from his duties on 14 December.

He is also facing separate charges for insurrection - making him South Korea's first sitting president to be arrested and charged with a crime - which he will be trialed for at a later date. He is now on bail.

Yoon is not the only South Korean politician to have faced impeachment in recent months.

Prime Minister Han Duck-soo was reinstated as the country's interim leader last month - a role he took up when Yoon was suspended - after he himself was impeached over his move to block the appointment of new judges to the constitutional court.

In 2017, former president Park Geun-hye was forced from office over her role in a corruption scandal involving a close friend.

April Hubbard sits on the theatre stage where she plans to die later this year.

She is not terminally ill, but the 39-year-old performance and burlesque artist has been approved for assisted dying under Canada's increasingly liberal laws.

Warning: This article contains details and descriptions some readers may find disturbing

She is speaking to BBC News from the Bus Stop Theatre, an intimate auditorium with a little under 100 seats, in the eastern city of Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Illuminated by a single spotlight on a stage she has performed on many times before, she tells me she plans to die here "within months" of her imminent 40th birthday. She'll be joined by a small group of her family and friends.

April plans to be in a "big comfy bed" for what she calls a "celebratory" moment when a medical professional will inject a lethal dose into her bloodstream.

"I want to be surrounded by the people I love and just have everybody hold me in a giant cuddle puddle and get to take my last breath, surrounded by love and support," she says.

April was born with spina bifida and was later diagnosed with tumours at the base of her spine which she says have left her in constant, debilitating pain.

She's been taking strong opioid painkillers for more than 20 years and applied for Medical Assistance in Dying (Maid) in March 2023. While she could yet live for decades with her condition, she qualified to end her life early seven months after applying. For those who are terminally ill it is possible to get approval within 24 hours.

"My suffering and pain are increasing and I don't have the quality of life anymore that makes me happy and fulfilled," April says. Every time she moves or breathes, she says it feels like the tissues from the base of her spine "are being pulled like a rubber band that stretches too far", and that her lower limbs leave her in agony.

We meet April as, almost 3,000 miles away, MPs are scrutinising proposals to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. They voted in principle in support of those plans in November 2024, but months of detailed scrutiny have followed - and further votes in the Commons and Lords are required before the bill could possibly become law.

This week, the BBC witnessed a man's death in California, where assisted dying laws are far more similar to those being considered in Westminster.

Critics say Canada is an example of the "slippery slope", meaning that once you pass an assisted dying law it will inevitably widen its scope and have fewer safeguards.

Canada now has one of the most liberal systems of assisted dying in the world, similar to that operating in the Netherlands and Belgium. It introduced Maid in 2016, initially for terminally ill adults with a serious and incurable physical illness, which causes intolerable suffering. In 2021, the need to be terminally ill was removed, and in two years' time, the Canadian government plans to open Maid to adults solely with a mental illness and no physical ailment.

Opponents of Maid tell us that death is coming to be seen as a standard treatment option for those with disabilities and complex medical problems.

"It is easier in Canada to get medical assistance in dying than it is to get government support to live," says Andrew Gurza, a disability awareness consultant and friend of April's.

Andrew, who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, says he respects April's decision, but tells us: "If my disability declines and my care needs got higher, I'd still want to be here. To know there's a law that's saying you could easily end your life - it's just really scary."

Before she was approved for Maid, April was assessed by two independent physicians who were required to inform her of ways to alleviate her suffering and offer alternative treatments.

"The safeguards are there," she says, when we press her about disabled people who feel threatened by assisted dying, or whether Maid is being used as a shortcut to better quality care. "If it's not right for you and you're not leading the charge and choosing Maid, you're not going to be able to access it unless it's for the right reasons," she adds.

There were 15,343 Maid deaths in 2023, representing around one in 20 of all deaths in Canada - a proportion that has increased dramatically since 2016 and is one of the highest in the world. The average age of recipients was 77.

In all but a handful of cases, the lethal dose was delivered by a doctor or nurse, which is also known as voluntary euthanasia. One doctor we spoke to, Eric Thomas, said he had helped 577 patients to die.

Dr Konia Trouton, president of the Canadian Association of Maid Assessors and Providers, has also helped hundreds of patients to die since the law was introduced.

The procedure is the same each time - she arrives at the home of the person who has been given approval for Maid and asks if they wish to go ahead with it that day. She says the patients always direct the process and then give her the "heads up and ready to go".

"That gives me an honour and a duty and a privilege to be able to help them in those last moments with their family around them, with those who love them around them and to know that they've made that decision thoughtfully, carefully and thoroughly," she adds. If the answer is yes, she opens her medical bag.

Demonstrating to the BBC what happens next, Dr Trouton briefly puts a tourniquet on my arm. She shows me where the needle would be inserted into a vein in the back of my hand to allow an intravenous infusion of lethal drugs.

In her medical bag she also has a stethoscope. "Strangely, these days I use it more to determine if someone has no heartbeat rather than if they do," she tells me.

A list of organisations in the UK offering support and information with some of the issues in this story is available at BBC Action Line

Some 96% of Maid provisions are under "track one" where death is "reasonably foreseeable". Dr Trouton says that means patients are on a "trajectory toward death", which might range from someone who has rapidly spreading cancer and only weeks to live or another with Alzheimer's "who might have five to seven years".

The other 4% of Maid deaths come under "track two". These are adults, like April, who are not dying but have suffering which is intolerable to them from a "grievous and irremediable medical condition".

That is in stark contrast to Labour MP Kim Leadbeater's bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales, which says patients must be expected to die within six months. The Westminster bill would not allow doctors to give a lethal dose – rather patients would have to self-administer the drugs, usually by swallowing them.

Death via intravenous infusion normally takes just a few minutes, as the lethal drugs go straight into the bloodstream, whereas swallowing the drugs means patients usually take around an hour or two to die, but can take considerably longer, although they are usually unconscious after a few minutes.

Dr Trouton told me she regarded the Canadian system as quicker and more effective, as do other Maid providers. "I'm concerned that if some people can't swallow because of their disease process, and if they're not able to take the entire quantity of medication because of breathing difficulties or swallowing difficulties, what will happen?"

'Canada has fallen off a cliff'

But opponents argue it's being used as a cheaper alternative to providing adequate social or medical support.

One of them is Dr Ramona Coelho, a GP in London, Ontario, whose practice serves many marginalised groups and those struggling to get medical and social support. She's part of a Maid Death Review Committee, alongside Dr Trouton, which examines cases in the province.

Dr Coelho told me that Maid was "out of control". "I wouldn't even call it a slippery slope," she says "Canada has fallen off a cliff."

"When people have suicidal ideations, we used to meet them with counselling and care, and for people with terminal illness and other diseases we could mitigate that suffering and help them have a better life," she says. "Yet now we are seeing that as an appropriate request to die and ending their lives very quickly."

While at Dr Coelho's surgery I was introduced to Vicki Whelan, a retired nurse whose mum Sharon Scribner died in April 2023 of lung cancer, aged 81. Vicki told me that in her mum's final days in hospital she was repeatedly offered the option of Maid by medical staff, describing it as like a "sales pitch".

The family, who are Catholic, discharged their mother so she could die at home, where Vicki says her mum had a "beautiful, peaceful death". "It makes us think that we can't endure, and we can't suffer a little bit, and that somehow now they've decided that dying needs to be assisted, where we've been dying for years.

"All of a sudden now we're telling people that this is a better option. This is an easy way out and I think it's just robbing people of hope."

'Not a way I want to live'

So is Canada an example of the so-called slippery slope? It's certainly true that the eligibility criteria has broadened dramatically since the law was introduced nine years ago, so for critics the answer would be an emphatic yes and serve as a warning to Britain.

Canada's assisted dying laws were driven by court rulings. Its Supreme Court instructed Parliament that a prohibition on assisted dying breached the country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The extension of eligibility for those who were not terminally ill was in part a response to another court decision.

In Britain, judges in the most senior courts have repeatedly said any potential change to the law around assisted dying is a matter for Parliament, after the likes of Tony Nicklinson, Diane Pretty and Noel Conway brought cases arguing the blanket ban on assisted suicide breached their human rights.

April knows some people may look at her, a young woman, and wonder why she would die.

"We're the masters of masking and not letting people see that we're suffering," she says. "But in reality, there's days that I just can't hide it, and there's many days where I can't lift my head off the pillow and I can't eat anymore.

"It's not a way I want to live for another 10 or 20 or 30 years."

Additional reporting by Joshua Falcon.

The Trump administration has fired Gen Timothy Haugh - the head of both the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command - the BBC's US partner CBS has reported.

It is not clear why he was removed, but it comes after a meeting between President Donald Trump and far-right activist Laura Loomer on Wednesday. Ms Loomer reportedly urged Trump to fire specific employees whom she suspected lacked support for his agenda.

She posted on X that Gen Haugh and his deputy Wendy Noble, who US media reported was also let go, "have been disloyal to President Trump. That is why they have been fired."

Before their firings were reported, Trump told reporters he would get rid of any staff deemed to be disloyal.

"We're always going to let go of people – people we don't like or people that take advantage of, or people that may have loyalties to someone else," he told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Trump made the comments as reports emerged of the firings of at least three other officials at the White House National Security Council (NSC), following the reported meeting with Ms Loomer. The president did not confirm names.

The National Security Agency (NSA) referred the BBC to the Office of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs for a comment on the firings.

The White House previously told the BBC that the NSC "won't comment on personnel" matters.

The top Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees - Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, vice chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence - disclosed Gen Haugh's firing to CBS.

Himes said in a statement that he was "deeply disturbed" by the decision, CBS reported.

"I have known General Haugh to be an honest and forthright leader who followed the law and put national security first — I fear those are precisely the qualities that could lead to his firing in this Administration," Himes said.

Those fired from the NSC on Thursday included Brian Walsh, a director for intelligence; Thomas Boodry, a senior director for legislative affairs; and David Feith, a senior director overseeing technology and national security, CBS reported.

It was not clear if Gen Haugh and Ms Noble's removals were connected to those at the NSC.

The firings follow a major controversy involving the NSC last month when senior officials inadvertently added a journalist to a Signal messaging thread about military strikes in Yemen.

Gen Haugh, who was not on the Signal chat, testified on Capitol Hill last week about the leak.

The extent to which that controversy played a role in the firings is unclear.

Trump has so far stood by top officials involved in the incident, including National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who took responsibility for the Atlantic magazine reporter being added to the Signal chat, and said it was an accident.

According to CBS, a source familiar with the situation said the Signal incident "opened the door" to looking into staff members believed not to be sufficiently aligned with Trump, while Ms Loomer's visit sealed the fate for those who were terminated.

The administration has been looking at outside meetings held by national security staff, reprimanding some for meeting people not believed to be aligned with the president, according to the source.

Aboard Air Force One en route to Miami, Florida, on Thursday, Trump praised Ms Loomer and confirmed he had met with her, calling her a "great patriot" and a "very strong person".

"She makes recommendations… sometimes I listen to those recommendations," he said. "I listen to everybody and then I make a decision."

In a phone call with the BBC, Ms Loomer said it would be "inappropriate" to divulge details of her meeting with Trump on Wednesday.

"It was a confidential meeting," she said. "It's a shame that there are still leakers at the White House who leaked this information."

She texted a statement that said: "It was an honor to meet with President Trump and present him with my research findings.

"I will continue working hard to support his agenda, and I will continue reiterating the importance of STRONG VETTING, for the sake of protecting the President of the United States of America and our national security."

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who posted information in the chat, is now the subject of an internal review into his use of Signal and whether he complied with his department's policies, the Pentagon's office of the acting inspector general said on Thursday.

Inspector general offices routinely conduct independent investigations and audits of federal agencies, and look into possible security breaches.

Upon returning to the White House in January, Trump removed many of the government's inspectors general and has installed acting heads of the watchdogs at the defence, commerce, labour and health departments.

Cosmetics company Lush and car repair chain Kwik Fit are among firms which have warned they will raise prices due an increase in employers' National Insurance (NI).

Other firms have told the BBC they will reduce how much profit they make, freeze hiring or in some cases cut jobs to cover the higher costs.

From Sunday, employers will have to pay NI at 15% on salaries above £5,000, instead of 13.8% on salaries above £9,100 currently.

The Treasury said the billions raised will be spent on public services, including the NHS.

Lush told the BBC that with 3,600 employees in the UK and Ireland, it would have to find an extra £2.7m per year.

Kasey Swithenbank, Lush's retail head for the UK and Ireland, said: "We are going to be taking small incremental price changes. We are taking an approach where we look at certain categories at key points of the year so hopefully our customers don't feel the full burden straight away."

Kwik Fit, which employs around 7,000 people, estimates the NICs rises will cost it £6.4m.

This will have a knock-on effect on prices, and recruitment, said Mark Slade, its managing director.

"We are really careful to make sure KwikFit is always competitive and benchmarked against the people around us - but the reality is that includes increasing prices."

He added: "There will be some people who aren't replaced over the coming year and that will be in the senior levels."

What are the changes?

• The rate that employers pay in contributions will rise from 13.8% to 15% on a worker's earnings above £175 per week. The government expects about 940,000 firms to pay more, 250,000 companies to pay less, and 820,000 to see no change.
• The threshold when employers start paying the tax on each employee's salary will be reduced from £9,100 per year to £5,000.
• But Employers Allowance - the amount employers can claim back from their National Insurance bill - has been raised from £5,000 to £10,500.

BBC Breakfast contacted around 200 UK businesses and charities in March, across different industries, from sole traders to large companies to get a sense of the impact of the increase in employer National Insurance Contributions.

Some 121 completed the questionnaire and around 100 of these businesses told us they had at least an approximate idea of how much increases in employer NICSs would cost them.

The costs ranged from £1,000 to £39m depending the size of the business and the number of employees.

Around 60 of the businesses which were planning to increase the staff count before announcement said the Budget had affected these plans.

How will firms manage the rises?

BBC Breakfast's questionnaire asked employers to choose from a list of actions they would take to manage increases in NICs.

• 77 said they would pass on costs to customers in price rises

• 68 said they would freeze or reduce hiring

• 81 said they would reduce their profit margins

• 39 said they would manage increases through job losses

Businesses most frequently told us they would choose a combination of these things.

Allison Kirkby, chief executive of BT, said the tax changes, which will cost the firm £100m, will mean it speeds up job cuts it was already planning.

She added that BT is "delighted" with tax relief on infrastructure investment in the Spring Statement and UK planning reforms.

"At the moment, like the country, we are focused on getting BT back to growth," she said.

"Predictability on taxation, on regulation and on planning is super helpful for the investment that goes into infrastructure like ours, which is the digital backbone of the country."

Angela Burns is the chief executive of the Webb Hotel Group, a group of four hotels based in Sutton Coldfield in the West Midlands.

It employs just under 300 people, and she says the NICs rises alone will cost £200,000 a year, with additional minimum wage and pension costs taking that to £600,000.

"It's really tough because our labour force is the main expense in our business," she said.

"As soon as it was announced in the budget in October, we started to look at restructuring, and as people have left, we haven't re employed. So we've actually cut our workforce down from about 320 to about 280 now to prepare ourselves."

She said prices would have to be moved "slightly upwards".

"But it's a balancing act as to what customers are prepared to pay," she added.

Greg Strickland, general manager of trampoline activity firm Jump Xtreme in Bolton, said the changes added £30,000 of costs "overnight".

He said it had cut 16 hours per week off some 40-hour contracts to cover the cost.

Meanwhile Andrew Lane, managing director of Union Industries in Leeds said the firm, which makes industrial doors, shares about half its post-tax profit with employees.

"This is going to hit them," he said. "There will be less money to distribute to our employee-owners."

The government has predicted the changes will raise between £14.6bn and £18.3bn a year over five years when compensation for public sector employers is taken into account.

A Treasury spokesperson told the BBC the government was "pro-business" and that it knew the "vital importance of small businesses to our economy".

They said October's budget "took difficult decisions on tax to stabilise the public finances, including the NHS which has now seen waiting lists fall five months in a row".

They added: "We are now focused on creating opportunities for businesses to compete and access the finance they need to scale, export and break into new markets."

Additional reporting by Oliver Smith & Jennifer Meierhans

A family affair

'Amazing' to reach landmark

Jockey Championship the next target

'A very low day'

Rare 16th Century wall paintings have been revealed at a former Tudor hunting lodge.

The Grotesque-style images were found behind failing plasterwork at The Ashes, in Inglewood Forest, near Ivegill, Cumbria

They feature fantastical beasts and foliage arranged in decorative panels, thought to be an imitation textile design.

In addition, scientific dating has confirmed that some of the earliest timbers in the building date from the early years of the reign of Elizabeth I.

Jen and Richard Arkell, the owners of The Ashes, said: "A small fragment of wall painting - similar to that seen at nearby Dacre Hall - has been visible in the house since before we acquired the property over 20 years ago.

"However, recent work to the primary upstairs bedroom revealed much more of the composition.

"Removing old failing plaster to find these remarkable motifs and faces looking back at us is a moment we will never forget."

Recent scientific dating using dendrochronology - a technique that analyses tree growth rings to determine age - established that the earliest part of the roof used timber, which was felled in or around the winter of 1561 to 1562.

The building has been given further recognition and protection by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the advice of Historic England.

As well as the Grade II* listing for the main building, it has been awarded Grade II listing to adjoining agricultural buildings and boundary walls.

Myra Tolan-Smith, from Historic England, said: "The combination of motifs discovered here is unusual even by national standards.

"Together with the newly listed farm buildings, this discovery provides remarkable insight into the evolution of a significant Tudor hunting lodge into a working farm."

Markus Campbell-Savours, MP for Penrith and Solway, said: "It's quite clear these paintings were a remarkable find and it's wonderful news that they have now been protected as part of the building's listing.

"We can only hope that local people can enjoy them and the history of Cumbria for many years to come."

US President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs on Wednesday including a 10% tariff on most countries.

Some of America's biggest trading partners will see even higher tariffs beginning 9 April.

The aggressive shift in trade policy makes clear where Trump stands on tariffs, but has left much of the world wondering what Americans - who are expected to see the side effects - think of the move.

We asked five people what they think.

Mary Anne Dagata, 71, Michigan

This Michigan resident thinks the pain Americans will feel will be temporary and worth it.

I know we're all going to get pinched in the pocket for a while. I think in the long run, it's going to get us out of the massive deficit that we're in.

I am concerned about the price of goods going up. I am going to end up being more particular about what I buy, basically I'll tighten the belt for a while.

But then I think it's going to go full circle and it's going to be a good thing for the economy and for people in general.

We've been the world's financial doormat for a while and we've gotta stop it.

• What Trump has done - and why it matters
• Explainer: What are tariffs and why is Trump using them?
• BBC Verify on the calculations used for Trump's giant cardboard chart

Catherine Foster, 58, Florida

This soon-to-be-retiree worries about economic instability prompted by Trump's actions.

I'm very unhappy. I'm probably a couple of years away from retiring and I don't know if I'm going to be able to retire.

My 401k's not doing great, Social Security is on the line and I don't think the tariffs are going to help America's standing on the world platform.

Trump is not a king and I feel like our Congress and Senate is letting us down, both parties, by not pushing back [on tariffs].

They know better, and they're not doing anything. Why?

Ben Maurer, 38, Pennsylvania

This trucker welcomes the incoming tariffs and hopes they can help restore smaller US towns.

I feel like the way to kick-start investment back into US manufacturing is exactly this.

It's a necessary evil.

Up until the 70s, there were two steel mills [in my area] and then they closed. And up until the last 10 years, the sites have been abandoned

We might not get back everything, but even if we recover 30-40% of it, it's quite a bit of money and jobs.

Gloria Smith, 77, Washington DC

This retiree says she is on a fixed income and feels Trump administration officials don't appreciate how tariffs will affect her life.

I'm on a fixed income. I'm retired, so things are going to go up and I'm worried. It means less money that I'll have coming in.

What I'm trying to do is stock up on food because I think things are going to get really, really bad as far as shipping. Food is the one thing that you can't really cut from your budget.

If I can be honest, Trump's got all the money. He doesn't have to [worry about] food. Musk has all the things, so this isn't going to affect them. So they don't know about the pain.

They say 'a little pain', but how little is this pain?

Robin Sloan, 73, Maryland

Robin says she's trying to hold out hope, but she worries the economic turmoil will affect her and her family.

I'm worried. I'm worried about my retirement funds. I'm worried that he's going to make other countries hate us for what he's doing. I just think he's an idiot.

I have a son and he's 30. He has his own family and he's looking for work and he's struggling. This isn't going to help things. He has two children - 18 months and six.

I tend to be a glass half-full type of person, but the president and his ideas are just so crazy sometimes. My financial adviser, who I really trust, did say that some of Trump's plans are good and good for the finance market.

It gives me a little bit of hope, I guess. But then when you see the stock market plunging, it was like "oh, maybe not".

The boss of US pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly says there is no looking back from Donald Trump's decision to impose sweeping tariffs on imports from the rest of the world.

In an exclusive interview with the BBC, David Ricks described it as a watershed moment in US economic history, "I think it's a pivot in US policy and it feels like it'll be hard to come back from here."

While Mr Ricks said he thought it may encourage some companies to relocate some manufacturing, he was doubtful it would also create hundreds of billions in additional revenue for the US promised by President Trump.

He also added that the UK's status as a pharmaceutical and life sciences power was in decline.

Eli Lilly is a pharmaceutical giant worth $750 billion with 50,000 employees across the US, Europe and Asia.

Because of their complex supply chains and the often life saving products they make, pharmaceutical companies along with microchip makers were temporarily exempted from the tariffs imposed on all products imported into the US.

But Mr Ricks seemed in little doubt that tariffs would eventually hit and that would have damaging consequences for investment in new medicines.

He explained that drug prices were essentially capped in Europe and the US which meant the impact of tariffs would be felt elsewhere.

"We cant breach those agreements so we have to eat the cost of the tariffs and make trade offs within our own companies. Typically that will be in reduction of staff or research and development and I predict R&D will come first. That's a disappointing outcome."

Mr Ricks said he did not support the imposition of tariffs but understood its intention and respected Mr Trump's political mandate.

"We don't support tariffs, to be clear. In pharma, about 70% of global R&D takes place in the United States. So we're creating the next generation of breakthroughs and cures. But the production is heavily weighted outside the US. And that's not unique to our industry. It happened with electronics and software and other things".

"So I think what this administration is saying is we want both. We want the means of production and we want the research and development intellectual property generation."

Eli Lilly are in the process of building a new additional £800 million facility in Limerick in Ireland where they employ over 3,000 people. Mr Ricks said that development would proceed.

"There's plenty of demand outside the US so we'd have to look at the flow of goods because we wouldn't want to have to pay tariffs if we didn't need to but I think for the moment that's fine."

But Mr Ricks said that its investment in the UK had been in decline and warned that slow regulation and poor uptake of new medicines threatened the UK's reputation as an important life sciences hub and that patients were missing out on new advances in medicine.

Mr Ricks said he delivered some "candid" comments to senior ministers including the Prime Minister, Health Secretary and Business Secretary.

"The UK's advantage is slipping. If you look at the numbers there is disinvestment in research and development. It's been on a steady decline."

So is the UK complacent when it thinks of itself as a life sciences super power?

"That's one way to put it."

Mr Ricks said countries like Germany spend nearly double of their health budget on medicines.

"The UK is not a large market. But what it could be is an exceptional market. You need three things to make our industry work. A strong intellectual property system, and the UK is quite good. You need a regulator that's timely efficient and predictable - pretty good there as well but most importantly you need a commercial market that rewards innovation - and here there's been significant backsliding".

Fundamentally wrong, was how Germany's outgoing chancellor, Olaf Scholz, described the new Trump tariffs.

A unilateral attack - that was the view of Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.

French President Emmanuel Macron called them brutal, unfounded and certain to have a "massive impact" on the European economy.

He convened an emergency meeting with representatives of French businesses most affected by the newly announced 20% tariffs on EU goods sold to the US and issued a call to arms to European business "not to invest in America for some time until we have clarified things".

"What message would we send by having major European players investing billions of euros in the American economy at a time when [the US] is hitting us?" he said.

For France it's wine, champagne and the aeronautical industry, for Germany it's cars, and for Italy it's luxury goods. It's well known these sectors sell well abroad and now risk being clobbered by US import taxes.

Overall, the chemicals, machinery and equipment industries in the EU are seen as the most vulnerable to the tariffs.

But dig a little deeper and there are other EU sectors, reliant on the US market, that could come as a bit of a surprise.

French cognac, generally dismissed as an old person's tipple in Europe, is the booze of choice for many American rappers, playing a prominent role in the music and lifestyle of stars like Jay-Z, 50 Cent and Snoop Dogg. More than 40% of French brandy is exported to the US.

Spain exports a lot of gas turbines to the US, alongside tonnes of olive oil.

Which EU countries are most exposed?

When we look at which EU countries are most exposed to the US in terms of GDP, the picture is also not quite what you might imagine.

Ireland is highly dependent on the US in terms of goods and services. Those exports - a lot linked to the pharmaceutical industry (which is currently exempt from the 20% tariffs, until the US boosts its own production) and also tech - make up a fifth of Ireland's GDP.

Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta are more exposed than the EU average in terms of services exports.

Belgium, the Netherlands and Slovakia are in a similar position when it comes to goods.

Germany has a greater exposure to the US than the other major EU economies, at over 5% of GDP, followed by Italy (about 4%), France (3%) and Spain (just over 2%). These figures were collated in 2024 by CaixaBank research based on Eurostat figures for the previous year.

Will the EU retaliate?

The response to the new US tariffs is being coordinated at EU HQ in Brussels. The European Commission deals with all overarching trade matters for the bloc's members.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen claims they hold "a lot of cards", including the strength to negotiate and the power to push back.

The US economy is mighty. It makes up 25% of global GDP.

But the EU single market of 450 million people (the biggest single market in the world) stands very close in size at 22% of global GDP.

So, yes, the EU can bite - hard - as well as bark when it comes to retaliating against Donald Trump's tariffs. Especially if, as EU figures have suggested, the bloc targets US services like Big Tech, possibly including Apple, Meta, Amazon and even Elon Musk's platform X.

But that risks a new backlash by the Trump administration. And the EU wants to avoid upping the ante.

If you take politics into account, not just economics, the EU has less room for manoeuvre than you might think.

Take energy supplies, the EU has been buying US liquified natural gas (LNG) after it weaned itself off Russian gas following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Tricky to reduce or heavily tax those imports. That would badly impact EU consumers, not only US industry, and it would worsen already dismal relations with the US.

Think of all the recent rows over defence spending and Ukraine. Aside from the economic hell the EU sees and hopes to avoid in the new Trump tariffs, the bloc also really wants to sidestep a trade war with the country that used to be Europe's best friend.

So, the Brussels plan is: threaten heavy retaliation, hope Donald Trump is persuaded to negotiate, then pray he'll stage a U-turn on tariffs.

The EU's trade commissioner, Maros Sefcovic, says he's speaking to his US counterparts on Friday. It's an opening gambit. The EU is in no rush to retaliate.

What could the EU offer the US in a negotiation?

The Trump administration has ruled out any country negotiating its way out of the new tariffs before they become live this weekend. But after that, what could the EU offer the US president to persuade him to back down?

Trump is incandescent about the EU's massive trade surplus. It sells far more goods than it buys from the US. The surplus for 2024 was around $200bn (€180bn; $153bn).

It's the other way round when it comes to services - the US sells far more to the EU than the other way round. That is why the EU thinks its main retaliatory leverage against the US would lie in services, like banks and big tech.

To redress the goods imbalance, the EU could offer to buy more LNG from the US, or more military equipment, following its pledge to Washington to do more for its own security.

But that would break a different EU promise - to boost withering European arms industries by trying to buy EU when re-arming EU countries. It is something the US has already objected to, so that's tricky.

Brussels could also cut direct and indirect tariffs on US goods. It could lose quotas on US agricultural produce.

It would be hugely reluctant to comply with another US ask: to water down its much-trumpeted digital regulations, aimed at limiting monopolies and placing restrictions on speech and content in the EU.

How bad can this all get?

How do you price in the possible collapse of the international trading system, EU officials ask.

European firms fret about their markets being flooded by cheap goods from non-EU countries that are also hit by Trump tariffs and seeking to sell elsewhere.

The risk is very real when it comes to China. Trump is slapping more that 50% tariffs on Beijing when you add it all up.

Would the EU have to ratchet up its import duties on Chinese goods to protect itself and could that lead to an unintended trade war with China?

These are anxious and hugely uncertain economic times.

Which is why the European Commission says it also wants to focus on matters it can control - if EU capitals agree - and that is reducing internal barriers within the EU single market.

Those barriers, such as tax regimes, vary from country to country and impact the EU's overall economic growth and competitiveness.

The IMF calculates they're equivalent to a 45% tariff on EU manufacturing; 110% when it comes to services.

That is far higher than the tariffs now imposed on the EU by Donald Trump.

EU countries say they're united in combating those. So far they've been divided over completing their own internal market.

South Korea's president has been removed from office after the Constitutional Court voted unanimously to uphold his impeachment.

Yoon Suk Yeol was suspended from duty in December after being impeached by parliament, following his failed attempt to impose martial law.

The ruling on Friday was met with tears of joy and sadness among Yoon's critics and supporters, who had gathered in various parts of Seoul to watch the verdict live.

A snap election to vote for Yoon's replacement must be held by 3 June.

What next for South Korea?

After months of anxiously waiting, South Koreans have some badly needed closure. The country can now start to repair and move forward, the first step being to elect a new leader.

But the crisis Yoon has unleashed is far from over. Although his military takeover only lasted six hours, the political fallout has only intensified with each month that has passed.

The night of 3 December, when Yoon ordered troops to storm parliament, changed something in South Korea's psyche. It reawakened the ghosts of the country's violent, dictatorial past, showing people that martial law was not, as most had assumed, consigned to history.

Many are still upset by what happened that night, and afraid that the threat of martial law could be brandished again by future zealous politicians.

Today's verdict therefore came as a relief to most, who cheered on the streets of Seoul as the verdict was read out. It is a victory for South Korea's democracy, that for a while looked as if it was on dangerous ground.

The constitutional court was damning in its criticism of Yoon's authoritarian power grab, as all eight judges voted to remove him from office.

In upholding his impeachment, Moon Hyung-bae, acting president of the eight-men bench, said Yoon's short-lived military takeover was not justified, and that he had "[gone] against the people he was supposed to protect".

He added that the implementation of martial law "damaged people's basic political rights" and "violated the principles of the rule of law and democracy".

Already, there are serious calls to change South Korea's constitution – to strengthen its institutions and limit the powers of the president - to guard against this happening again. However, it will take a particularly patriotic future president to sign off on reducing their own authority.

South Korea more polarised than ever

As Yoon leaves office, he leaves behind not just a shaken country, but a divided one. In the aftermath of that shocking December night, South Koreans were mostly united in their disgust for the president and what he had attempted to do.

But Yoon showed no remorse. He dug in, fought his trial at every step, and continued to dangle the same unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that he used to justify his military takeover.

He claimed that the country and his political opposition had been infiltrated by North Korean and Chinese spies, and that these "anti-state forces" had rigged past elections.

Gradually more and more people believed him. Through his belligerence, Yoon has turned himself into a political martyr for many – the victim of an establishment that has been overrun by "communists".

His conspiracy theories have firmly taken root, and far-right extremism is flourishing. Thousands protest every week in the centre of Seoul. They were on the streets on Friday, and will be there again Saturday, claiming the country's politicians and judges are corrupt and elections are rigged.

And these are not fringe views.

More than a third of people now say they do not trust the Constitutional Court while delivered Yoon's verdict; more than a quarter do not trust the voting system.

Within this climate of distrust, South Korea must head to the polls. Yoon's successor needs to be chosen in the next 60 days. These days are sure to be fraught and even more divisive. Many may not to accept the result that comes.

Yet South Korea urgently needs a new leader who can advocate for the country as whole, having been without one for months.

It quickly needs to figure out how to deal with President Trump, having started on the backfoot. His 25% tariffs on cars and steel have dealt Seoul, and its ailing economy, an early a blow, but many believe worse is coming; that it is only time until Mr Trump turns his gaze to the Korean peninsula, and when he does he will try to force South Korea to pay more for its defence and cut a deal with Seoul's arch enemy, Kim Jong Un.

Yoon's legal team has accused the court of politicising the ruling.

"The whole process of this trial itself was not lawful and unfair," said one of his lawyers, Yoon Gap-geun.

"I feel regrettable that this completely is a political decision," he said.

But politicians are calling for unity, asking everyone to accept this verdict, so South Korea can at least start to move on.

Yoon's political party, the PPP, has conceded, but Yoon himself has not. In a statement he apologised to his supporters for his "shortcomings" without mentioning the ruling.

"I am truly sorry and regretful that I could not live up to your expectations," he said.

"It has been a great honor to serve the Republic of Korea. I am deeply grateful to all of you who supported and encouraged me, despite my many shortcomings," he said.

He cannot appeal, as the decision was made by South Korea's top court. But, having repeatedly vowed to fight to the end, he could still refuse to go quietly.

How did we get here?

In an unprecedented televised announcement on 3 December, Yoon said he was invoking martial law to protect the country from "anti-state" forces that sympathised with North Korea.

At the time, the embattled leader was in a deadlock over a budget bill, dogged by corruption scandals and several of his cabinet ministers were under investigation.

Less than two hours after Yoon's declaration, 190 lawmakers who gathered, including some from Yoon's party, voted to overturn it.

Yoon was impeached by parliament and suspended from his duties on 14 December.

He is also facing separate charges for insurrection - making him South Korea's first sitting president to be arrested and charged with a crime - which he will be trialed for at a later date. He is now on bail.

Yoon is not the only South Korean politician to have faced impeachment in recent months.

Prime Minister Han Duck-soo was reinstated as the country's interim leader last month - a role he took up when Yoon was suspended - after he himself was impeached over his move to block the appointment of new judges to the constitutional court.

In 2017, former president Park Geun-hye was forced from office over her role in a corruption scandal involving a close friend.