A sense of normality is slowly returning to Israel, even as large-scale Israeli-American attacks on Iran show no sign of abating, and as Israel expands its offensive in Lebanon against the Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah.

Six days on, as the intensity of the Iranian retaliation has diminished, measures that banned gatherings and closed shops and offices are being relaxed here. Air raid alerts still sound, sending people across the country to shelters.

Chaya Dekel, who is in her 70s, said she had lost count of many wars she had seen. She was tired, she said, but defended the war as Iran "didn't want peace".

"We're living here, with hope that there will be an end," she said. "Everybody is Israel hopes we'll live in peace with our people and our neighbours."

Support for the war is strong in this country. A poll released by the Israel Democracy Institute on Wednesday suggested that 93% of the Jewish public were in favour of it, compared with 26% among Israeli Arabs.

"This is actually a consensus," Prof Tamar Hermann, a senior research fellow who helped carry out the survey, said. "Even during the last campaign against Iran, we didn't have such high numbers."

One of the reasons behind that, she said, was the fact that the damage in Israel from Iran's retaliatory strikes had been "very, very limited".

This is due to Israel's sophisticated air defences - a multi-layered system of protection that, according to officials, has intercepted between 80% to 90% of the projectiles fired at the country in this war. So far, the attacks have killed 10 people across Israel.

Another factor, Prof Hermann said, was that public trust in the military and the intelligence services has recovered after the security failures that led to the attacks on 7 October 2023 led by Hamas - one of the militant groups in the region that Iran has supported to form a so-called "ring of fire" around Israel.

But, crucially, there is also unity over the Iranian issue which, for decades, has been framed by many as an "existential threat". That includes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

From his 1995 book Fighting Terrorism to his famous speech at the United Nations General Assembly in 2012, when he displayed the illustration of a bomb to explain how close, in his view, Iran was to obtaining a nuclear weapon, Netanyahu has repeatedly told the world that Iran must be stopped.

Last June, Netanyahu, who is Israel's longest-serving prime minister and the leader of the most right-wing government in the country's history, ordered an attack on Iran that significantly damaged its nuclear and military capabilities.

The US eventually joined the conflict, which became known as the 12-Day War.

The campaign was celebrated as a success in Israel, helping boost domestic support for the army.

Earlier this year, Iran's security forces brutally repressed anti-government protests, killing thousands of people.

The demonstrations exposed huge public discontent amid mounting questions about the legitimacy of rule by the clerics and an economy in deep crisis.

With the leadership under pressure, Iran's defences downgraded and its proxies weakened, Israel and the US saw an opportunity to attack Iran that was not to be missed.

President Donald Trump deployed what he described as an "armada" to the Middle East - marking the largest US military build-up in the region since the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

But neither him nor Netanyahu has clearly laid out what imminent threat Iran presented which required the use of military force or what their objectives were of this latest war, which Iran says is illegal and unjustified.

Israeli officials, including Netanyahu, have publicly said they hope it could lead to regime change in Iran.

For now, this is an unlikely scenario, even after the killing of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in an air strike on his compound in Tehran on the first day of the war.

Khamenei had repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, as well as urging crowds chanting "Death to America" every week.

The war, Netanyahu said earlier this week, will "usher in an era of peace that we haven't even dreamed of".

He also laughed at the suggestion that he had dragged the US into this conflict, describing it as "ridiculous".

In the US, where public support for Israel has declined sharply in the wake of the war against Hamas in Gaza, just one in every four Americans support the strikes on Iran, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The perception that this is a conflict to defend Israel's interests could damage Israel's image in the US even further.

In Israel, however, there has been very little criticism of Netanyahu's decision to go to war, even from his opponents.

And according to the Israel Democracy Institute poll, among Jews, 57% believe that the bombing should not stop until the current Iranian rulers are overthrown.

"[Israelis] see that the people of Iran share this goal...so they believe this is the opportunity [to do it] with the Israelis and Americans from the air, and the people of Iran on the ground," said Prof Meir Javedanfar, an Israeli-Iranian analyst and professor at Reichman University in Herzliya.

"I don't think they realise how difficult that is."

At the same time, many in Israel are tired.

"It's been five years of constant upheaval. It was the judicial reform [plans by the government to limit the powers of the Constitutional court which led to huge protests], then 7 October, then Iran a year ago. Now we have this, and we've had Lebanon in the middle," Tom Dan said after leaving a bomb shelter.

"Obviously, a lot of other people are living tougher lives...but there's this feeling that this is a good cause. This [Iranian] regime was hell bent on destroying Israel."

But have Israelis become too happy to embrace militarism?

"I certainly would say that, on the radical right, people are much more eager to deal with the regional problems by force," Prof Hermann said.

"They see it as something that separates Israeli Jews from diasporic Jews. For example, we're strong. We're capable of defending ourselves.

"And all this mumbo-jumbo of diplomatic negotiations is something that won't save us once there is someone in Tehran that is interested in destroying us."

Rut Spigler, a 19-year-old student on a gap year, was helping clean up the site that was hit by an Iranian missile in Tel Aviv the morning after the attack.

"The times the Israeli people most came together were the wars with Iran because that's a goal that we believe in," she said.

"Maybe this one will be the last war and we'll have some peace and quiet."

There is a small minority, though, who question the reasons for starting a new war.

Ron, who did not want to give his full name, owns a coffee shop in central Tel Aviv.

"I feel sadness, fear and frustration, and it's a bad time for Israel. Israel should not attack Iran - it not the police of the world," he said. "[There's] no right under international law...you don't have the right to attack a nation far away from here."

Iran's military posture in a widening conflict with Israel and the US suggests it is not fighting for victory in any conventional sense. It is fighting for survival, and survival on its own terms.

The Islamic Republic's leaders and commanders have been preparing for this moment for years.

They understood that their regional ambitions could eventually trigger a direct confrontation with Israel or the US, and that a war with one would almost certainly draw in the other. That pattern was evident in the 12-day war last summer, when Israel struck first and the US joined days later.

In the current round of fighting, they launched strikes on Iran simultaneously.

Given the technological superiority, intelligence capabilities and advanced military hardware of the US and Israel, it would be naive to think Iranian strategists were planning for a straightforward battlefield victory.

Instead, Iran appears to have built a strategy around deterrence and endurance. It has invested heavily in layered ballistic missile capabilities, long-range drones and a network of allied armed groups across the region over the past decade.

It understands its own limitations: US mainland territory is out of reach but American bases across the region - specifically in neighbouring Arab countries - are not. Israel also lies well within range of Iranian missiles and drones, and recent exchanges have demonstrated that its air defence systems can be penetrated. Each projectile that goes through those systems carries not just military but psychological weight.

Iran's calculus rests partly on the economics of war. Interceptors used by Israel and the US are much more expensive than many of the one-way drones and missiles deployed by Iran. Prolonged conflict forces the US and Israel to use up high-value assets to intercept comparatively low-cost threats.

Energy is another lever in the war economy.

The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world's most critical chokepoints for oil and gas shipments. Iran does not need to close the narrow Gulf waterway entirely - even credible threats and limited disruptions have already pushed prices up and, if continued, may increase international pressure for de-escalation.

In this sense, escalation becomes a tool not necessarily to defeat Iran's opponents militarily but instead to raise the cost of continuing the war.

This brings us to attacks on neighbouring countries.

Missile and drone strikes on states such as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman and Iraq appear designed to signal that hosting US forces carries risks.

Tehran may hope these governments will press Washington to limit or halt operations - but this is a dangerous gamble. To expand attacks further risks hardening their hostility and pushing these states more firmly into the US-Israel camp.

The long-term consequences could outlast the war itself, reshaping regional alignments in ways that leave Iran more isolated.

If survival is the primary objective, then widening the circle of enemies is a high-stakes move. Yet from Tehran's perspective, restraint may appear equally risky if it signals weakness.

Reports that local commanders may be selecting targets or launching missiles with relative autonomy raises further questions.

If accurate, this would not necessarily indicate the collapse of command structures. Iran's military doctrine, particularly within the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), has long incorporated decentralised elements to ensure continuity under heavy attack.

Communication networks are vulnerable to interception and jamming. Senior commanders have been targeted. Air superiority by the US and Israel limits central oversight. Under such conditions, pre-authorised target lists and delegated launch authority could be deliberate safeguards against decapitation.

This structure may explain how Iranian forces have continued operating after the killing of senior IRGC figures and even after the killing of Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader and commander-in-chief, in the opening US-Israeli strikes on Saturday.

But decentralisation carries risks. Local commanders acting with incomplete information may strike unintended targets, including neighbouring states that had sought neutrality.

The absence of a unified operational picture increases the probability of miscalculation. If this continues for long, it could also result in the loss of command and control.

Ultimately, Iran's approach appears to rest on a belief that it can absorb punishment longer than its adversaries are willing to sustain pain and costs.

If this is the case, then it is a form of calculated escalation: endure, retaliate, avoid total collapse and wait for political fractures to emerge on the other side.

Yet endurance has limits. Missile stockpiles are limited and production lines are constantly under attack. Mobile launchers are targeted on the move and replacing them takes time.

The same logic applies to Iran's opponents.

Israel has not been able to rely completely on its air defence systems. Each breach amplifies public anxiety. The US must weigh regional escalation, energy market volatility and the financial burden of sustained operations.

Both sides seem to assume that time favours them. Both cannot be right.

In this war, the Islamic Republic does not need triumph. It needs to remain standing.

Whether that objective is achievable, and without permanently alienating its neighbours, remains the unanswered question.

For a sixth day, the US and Israel are battering targets in Iran, waging war from the air. Could there soon be boots on the ground? Maybe. But not American ones.

Iranian Kurdish opposition groups in exile in northern Iraq have told the BBC they have plans to cross the border - and have had them for decades - but they flatly deny claims that their fighters have already done so.

"We have been preparing for this for the past 47 years, since the age of the Islamic Republic," said Hana Yazdanpana, of the Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK), which claims to have the biggest armed force.

But she insisted that "not a single Peshmerga has moved". The Kurdish word peshmerga means "those who face death".

Yazdanpana told us that six opposition groups - which recently formed a coalition – were co-ordinating with each other politically and militarily. "No-one moves alone," she told us. "We will know if our brothers are going to move."

She does not expect fighters to advance this week. First, the US needs to pave the way.

"We can't move if the air above us is not cleaned," she said. "And we need the regime's weapons depots to be destroyed. Otherwise, it would be suicidal. The regime is very brutal, and the most advanced weapon we have is a Kalashnikov."

She wants the US to impose a no-fly zone to protect Kurdish fighters. "We have asked for this many times," she said. "I was the one who sent the emails saying 'we need it urgently'."

The White House has denied a report that US President Donald Trump was considering arming the Kurds - many of whom were trained by US forces in the past to fight against the Islamic State (IS) group in Iraq.

But as the chatter about a possible advance by Iranian Kurdish forces increases, so do Tehran's attacks on them. We saw the aftermath of strikes on two different groups, including a ballistic missile attack which tore through a PAK base, killing one fighter.

Some groups have emptied their bases and moved their forces to try to shield them from attack.

Joining the battle against the regime would be a huge risk, and it's unclear what Trump may be offering in return.

The Kurds, which are the fourth largest ethnic group in the Middle East, are scattered between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. They have a long history of being persecuted and betrayed. As the Kurdish saying goes, "we have no friends but the mountains".

Can the US be trusted to keep any promises it may make? Many Kurds in Syria - staunch US allies in the battle against IS - were angered recently when Trump sided with the transitional government in Damascus against them.

But some senior Iranian Kurdish leaders take a pragmatic view.

"America and Israel did not begin this war for our hopes, but for their own interests," said Mustafa Mauludi, vice-president of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI). "But they are targeting bases of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps [IRGC], and this will be good for us and help us to go in."

At 67, he has been waiting most of his lifetime for the fall of the Islamic regime.

Wearing traditional Kurdish dress, he recounted a painful family history - one cousin killed by the regime aged 13 and another who remains in prison after 31 years on suspicion of collaborating with the opposition. He said 60% of his family had been arrested and badly treated because of his political activities.

Mauludi already has a mental picture of his first moments back on home soil.

"When I get to the first village," he told us, "I will say with a loud voice: 'I have been fighting for you, you are my people, and now I will fight even more.'" He believes he will be there in time to celebrate the Kurdish new year festival, Nowruz, which falls on 21 March.

The Kurds account for about 10% of Iran's population of 90 million. Their leaders here are calling on the international community to back Trump, and to back them.

"We are the most politically organised group in Iran," said Abdullah Mohtadi, secretary general of the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan. "And we won't let this opportunity [for change] be wasted."

He is disappointed with the UK's stance.

"I'm astonished that Britain is the only country in the continent [of Europe] that has not registered the IRGC as a terrorist organisation," Mohtadi said. He also criticised Britain's "hesitation" over allowing the US to use its bases to strike Iran.

It is hard to gauge how many troops the Kurds could muster. "It may be several thousand, including some already inside," according to one local journalist, who is Kurdish himself.

"They want to be part of the change in Iran, to ensure they are part of the future. Despite the lessons of history, they continue to hope."

Some Iranian Kurds say it is time to act - without or without American promises.

"If we have the slightest hope of seeing our homeland, that is ok for us," said one woman in the city of Sulaymaniyah, close to the Iranian border.

"We call it [Iran] the Islamic regime of the executioner. We hate them so much. They have killed so many people."

All of this leaves Iraq in a difficult position, fearful of getting dragged into the war next door. The government in Baghdad has said it will not allow groups "to infiltrate or cross the Iranian border to carry out terrorist acts from Iraqi territory".

If Kurdish forces cross the border, it will be a bittersweet moment for the PAK's Hana Yazdanpana.

"Going back to my land will be very emotional," she said. "My uncles and grandparents died here [in northern Iraq]. I don't know how to feel, happy or sad, because those who really deserve to see this day are gone."

Additional reporting by Wietske Burema, Matthew Goddard and Bizhar Shareef

Warning: this story contains details which some readers might find distressing

​​Satellite imagery analysis reveals multiple strikes and burn marks around a school in southern Tehran, suggesting it was hit more than once, in an attack Iranian authorities say killed 168 people on Saturday.

Verified videos and satellite imagery show extensive damage around the Shajareh Tayebeh primary school in Minab and the adjacent Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) compound. It also suggests area was "struck by multiple simultaneous or near-simultaneous strikes", says munitions expert N R Jenzen Jones.

Two damaged buildings can be clearly seen in the image: one completely flattened within the IRGC base and the school building that is partially collapsed.

Verified footage of the immediate aftermath of the strikes shows scenes of panic, with families screaming, as people search for victims in the rubble. In some videos, people hold up children's schoolbags and books to the camera.

Three days later, aerial footage showed neatly lined rows of at least 100 marked or freshly dug graves.

Iranian officials have blamed the US and Israel for the attack, however neither country has accepted responsibility. Israel says it was not aware of any operations in the area, while US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that Washington was still investigating the incident and that it would "never target, civilian targets".

An ongoing internet blackout in Iran has made it difficult to independently verify details of the incident.

There has been intense speculation about what the intended target of the attack was.

According to the Iranian authorities, it took place at around 10:45 local time (07:15 GMT).

BBC Verify has confirmed footage posted on social media on Saturday morning, the first day of the Iranian working week, which shows the immediate aftermath.

In one video a man films as he rushes into the school's courtyard which is located immediately to the north-east of the IRGC base. Part of a sign above the entrance is visible, which matches the first three letters of the word primary school in Persian.

From inside the school's courtyard, four plumes of black smoke can be seen, with two smaller ones pouring out of the windows of the top floor of the main school building.

Walls decorated with children's murals and letters of the Persian alphabet separate the school courtyard from the IRGC base.

Another clip filmed from a moving vehicle on the southern edge of the IRGC compound shows a sign marking the entrance. There are two visible IRGC logos on the entrances to the "Seyed al-Shohada educational and cultural corps" and a medical clinic, which Iranian media reports as belonging to the IRGC navy.

At least three columns of black smoke are visible in the footage: two closer to the entrance of the base, and a third further away behind the medical clinic.

The location of smoke plumes in verified videos correspond to where the damage is visible in satellite images.

Footage filmed later in the day showed significant damage to the school building. Emergency services search through the rubble while distressed families move slowly around the courtyard, some wailing.

One widely shared video geolocated to the school shows rescue teams at the scene finding a child's severed arm beneath the rubble. Schoolbooks and bloodied backpacks were also filmed among the debris.

Without access to more footage on the ground or eyewitness testimony, satellite imagery is crucial to our understanding of what happened.

Satellite imagery captured by Planet Labs on 4 March - four days after the incident - reveals more widespread destruction than previously confirmed in verified videos.

Several buildings in the area have been partially or fully destroyed and BBC Verify has identified at least five buildings with visible craters and black scorch marks - which indicates that there were several strikes.

"So many [impact sites] so close together (relatively speaking) suggests there were one or more targets in close proximity to each other," said satellite image analyst Jamon Van den Hoek from Oregon State University.

"[It] seems it was intentional to hit the area," he said, adding "But we don't know what they intended to strike."

Oz Smith, a senior analyst from McKenzie Intelligence Services told BBC Verify the crater on the ground floor of the two-story school building indicates that a specialised munition may have been used to "penetrate to the lower levels".

The school building is located near the IRGC base.

Satellite imagery from 2013 appears to show the school building was part of the same compound, before a wall is seen in 2016 separating it.

Iran says the attack was carried out by the US and Israel. But neither Israel nor the US have claimed responsibility for damage to the school.

Israel has said it was "not aware" of any IDF operations in the area but told BBC Verify it is looking into the incident.

On Wednesday, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the BBC the US is still investigating the incident.

"We of course never target civilian targets, but we're we're taking a look at investigating that," he added.

During the news conference, an illustrative map was shown of the "First 100 hours" of the US-Israeli war with Iran, marking the locations of strikes and Iranian air defences along the southern coast of Iran, which includes the area of Minab.

Without more footage of the remnants of munitions, it's not possible to clearly identify who is responsible.

A widely shared image posted on social media led to claims that the blast had been caused by a failed missile fired by the IRGC. However, we located the image to an unrelated incident in Zanjan, over a thousand kilometres away from Minab.

"It is unlikely that the significant blast damage seen here was caused by an Iranian surface-to-air missile, which carry relatively small explosive warheads," director of Armament Research Services, Jenzen Jones said.

Iranian officials said most of the 168 people killed were children.

BBC Verify has not been able to independently verify those details through footage available of the incident. It's also not clear if any IRGC members were killed, or who may have been operating there.

The school itself had 264 pupils in total, according to Iran's Education Ministry.

A hand-written list published by Iranian media shows the names of 56 people reportedly killed in the incident, alongside their dates of birth. Forty-eight of these names are aged between six and 11.

BBC Verify has not been able to independently verify these details. However, at least three of the names on the list appear in another video where coffins are labelled with the same names.

Photos also show what appear to be three children inside body bags.

The US-based Human Rights News Agency (Hrana) has so far documented the deaths of 1,114 Iranian civilians since the beginning of the war, including 183 children.

Days later, footage of thousands of people lining the streets for the funeral procession was broadcast by Iranian state media. Men can be seen carrying coffins - some child-sized - with the flag of the Islamic Republic draped over them. Crowds of women also held onto photos of boys and girls.

The semi-official Tasnim news agency, which is affiliated with the IRGC, published a photo and said 14 school teachers had been killed in the attack.

Additional reporting by Paul Brown.

What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?

Sooner or later, advisers in President Donald Trump's orbit all come to learn the same unwritten rule: no one can outshine the boss.

Kristi Noem, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, became the latest reminder of that on Thursday when Trump announced he was removing her from her post as the face of the administration's crackdown on immigration.

Noem will be replaced by Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin at the end of the month, Trump said in a post on Truth Social. He said Noem would move to a new job as special envoy for a new US security initiative in the Western Hemisphere called The Shield of the Americas.

"I thank Kristi for her service at "Homeland",' Trump said.

It ends Noem's controversial tenure at the top of the department, which is tasked with carrying out the president's sweeping immigration agenda.

Noem was one of the administration's brightest stars when she stepped into the role last year after Trump returned to the White House. She immediately gained attention for joining immigration raids, often appearing in a bulletproof vest alongside field agents carrying out enforcement actions.

She was a vocal advocate of Trump's deportation drive, and touted policies that effectively closed the US-Mexico border. She also took the message abroad, in one instance visiting a maximum-security prison in El Salvador that took in some migrants deported from the US.

But Noem's unconventional approach courted controversy from the start.

Homeland Security secretaries do not typically partake in field operations. Noem's decision to appear on the frontlines of Trump's immigration crackdown was viewed by critics as an effort to burnish her image as the tough-talking immigration enforcer-in-chief.

She sparked a backlash by wearing a $50,000 watch during her visit to CECOT, the notorious prison in El Salvador. Noem also appeared on horseback in a DHS advertising campaign calling for undocumented immigrants to leave the US.

This led some of Noem's critics on the left to brand her "ICE Barbie". Democrats in Congress also blasted Noem for spending $220 million in federal funding on an advertising blitz starring herself, and nearly $200 million on two luxury jets for her official travel.

Noem defended the ad campaign in a Capitol Hill hearing earlier this week and said Trump was aware of the spending.

But Trump publicly contradicted Noem on Thursday before announcing her firing, telling Reuters he was not aware of the expensive campaign. "I never knew anything about it," he said.

The president had an acrimonious call with Corey Lewandowski, a senior adviser to Noem, on Tuesday after her testimony to Congress, the BBC's US news partner CBS reported. Lewandowski is also now leaving the department.

Trump is reported to have called Republicans in Congress asking if he should fire Noem, a sign he was moving towards shaking up his immigration team this week. It is perhaps telling that some immediately backed his decision on Tuesday.

South Carolina's Lindsey Graham, for example, said "it was time for a change".

"A change in leadership at the Department of Homeland Security was long overdue," Representative Dan Newhouse said.

But Trump's frustration with Noem had been clear for months if not longer. The administration faced a major backlash for its immigration crackdown in Minneapolis in January, after federal agents shot dead two US citizens.

Trump sent White House border czar Tom Homan to Minneapolis to lead the response, which resulted in a decision to scale back the operation. Homan's appointment was widely viewed as a rebuke to Noem, who might normally have been given the assignment.

Noem was also criticised for comments she made after the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, particularly her claim, made without evidence, that Pretti had "committed an act of domestic terrorism" before he was shot.

The deployment of Homan to take charge in Minnesota was a clear indication that Trump was sidelining Noem after giving her the freedom to act as the administration's immigration enforcement star.

The administration response to the killings of Good and Pretti in Minneapolis was a rare instance of Trump moderating his message on immigration - and a sign the White House was aware the hardline approach spearheaded by Noem was growing unpopular with the public.

Polls have indicated that a majority of Americans approve of some aspects of Trump's immigration agenda, but do not support the more aggressive tactics used by immigration agents in the field. That presents an issue for Republicans heading into an election year, and Noem's removal suggests Trump saw a need to make a change.

It is also the first major shakeup of Trump's second-term cabinet.

In his first term, Trump replaced his national security adviser, White House chief of staff and other top officials in his first year in office, oftentimes by announcing the firing in a Tweet. The turmoil in his team frequently overshadowed Trump's policies.

By contrast, Trump has kept his cabinet largely intact in his second term, avoiding the drama that engulfed his first stint in the White House. Whether Noem's departure means others will follow remains to be seen.

It is also an open question whether the shakeup will lead to a new direction in policy at the Deeartment of Homeland Security.

Mullin is a conservative Trump ally, and like Noem has long been a hardline immigration voice on the right. After Pretti's shooting Mullin said federal law enforcement officials were "patriots" facing death threats for doing their job.

"Obstructing federal law enforcement is a felony. Most Americans follow ICE instructions without thinking twice," Mullin said in a social media post.

More recently, he has criticised Democrats over a partial government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. The agency has been caught in a funding battle over proposed reforms to immigration enforcement.

In a scene reminiscent of Trump's first term, Noem was delivering a speech in the moments when Trump posted his social media message announcing her firing. She soon published a social media post of her own, thanking Trump for her new role.

Noem may be the first high-profile casualty of Trump's second term. But she may not be the last, as her demotion shows the president remains willing and able to read the political winds and cut his losses early.

US President Donald Trump has announced Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin will be the new Homeland Security secretary, replacing the agency's embattled head Kristi Noem.

The first-term senator, a former mixed martial arts fighter, has been a supporter of Trump and his policies since coming to Washington.

Mullin, known for his fiery personality, will be the second Homeland Security chief in Trump's second administration. The Senate would need to confirm Mullin to the post.

The senator has been complimentary of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) efforts to detain undocumented immigrants - a fixture of the Trump administration's policy and a focus for Noem before she was ousted.

Mullin is among the Republicans who have been critical of the ongoing partial US government shutdown, which has allowed funding to lapse from the DHS.

"What is actually happening right now with the Democrat Party by this political theatre, by shutting down DHS for something that you even admitted yourself can't be done," Mullin told CNN last month. "They're not stopping [Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] from doing their job."

Should he be confirmed, Mullin will head an agency that has faced increased criticism in recent months, particularly in the wake of two US citizens being killed by federal immigration officials in Minnesota.

He has previously supported Homeland Security policy and the administration's immigration crackdown.

"Obstructing federal law enforcement is a felony. Most Americans follow ICE instructions without thinking twice," Mullin posted on social media following the death of Alex Pretti, who was shot dead by immigration agents in Minneapolis.

"These patriots are doing a difficult job under an 8,000% rise in death threats," he added.

Mullin was sworn in as a US senator in 2023.

Over the past two decades, Mullin, father to six children, worked alongside his wife to grow his family plumbing business, according to his website.

The US has asked Ukraine for help defending Gulf allies against Iranian drones, according to President Volodymyr Zelensky.

He said Ukraine's partners had been reaching out and there had been "requests from the American side". The Pentagon declined to comment.

Zelensky made clear Ukraine would help only on the condition that its own defence was not weakened and that there were diplomatic gains for Kyiv - suggesting, in particular, that Ukraine would be willing to swap its interceptor drones for more US Patriot air defences to protect against Russian ballistic missiles.

The war in the Middle East has raised fears Ukraine could suffer if its allies are distracted by the conflict.

There have also been concerns about a potential shortage of interceptor missiles and Russia benefiting from rising oil prices, the proceeds from which are a key source of funding for its war effort.

Zelensky has acknowledged these risks but also seems keen to take advantage of the crisis to further Ukraine's national interest.

He has spoken to counterparts across the Gulf - in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait - and is promising what he calls "concrete steps" to help them defend their military bases and civilian infrastructure from Iranian attack.

"It is clear what their main request to Ukraine is," Zelensky said on social media.

"Anyone who has faced Iranian strikes encounters a serious challenge - Shaheds, which are difficult to intercept without the proper expertise and adequate weapons."

He added: "It is in our common interest to help people defend themselves and to restore stability in critically important supply routes.

"Partners are reaching out to Ukraine for assistance in defending against Shaheds - for expertise and practical support. There have also been requests from the American side."

Ukraine has for years been subject to strikes by Russian-made Shahed drones - one-way unmanned aircraft based on an Iranian design.

The irony of the US asking for help has not been lost on Ukrainians who have suffered from US President Donald Trump's erratic policy towards their defence against Russia's full-scale invasion.

The US has ceased direct military support under his administration but continues to provide vital intelligence that helps Ukraine both defend against drones and missiles, and strike targets deep within Russia.

Now, after years of Ukraine asking for help, the tables have been turned and it seems clear Zelensky wants to use this moment as a diplomatic, military and financial opportunity.

Ukraine may hope for US gratitude if it can help American allies in the Gulf, especially Saudi Arabia.

It may also hope to win favour among Arab nations, some of which have traditionally had close links with Russia and have tried to avoid taking sides in the Ukraine conflict.

Delegations from the Gulf have already arrived in Kyiv for discussions. One source said some had been told to stay in Ukraine's capital until they agreed a deal. The UK is said to be looking for ways of helping Qatar.

Zelensky may also hope that, by giving Gulf partners adequate air defences, he will discourage them from using expensive and scarce Patriot missiles to bring down cheap drones.

Ukraine faces a shortage of Patriot air defences, and Kyiv will not want too many diverted and wasted in the Middle East.

Zelensky told journalists on Thursday that about 800 Patriot PAC-3 missiles had been used already in recent days – more than Ukraine has received during the entire war.

He suggested a swap: "We would like to quietly work with countries – both those we can name and those we cannot – to obtain for ourselves some of the deficit missiles for Patriot systems and transfer the appropriate number of [drone] interceptors."

But any help Ukraine gives will be qualified. Zelensky said in his social media post: "Of course, any assistance we provide will only be on the condition that it does not weaken our own defence in Ukraine and that it serves as an investment in our diplomatic capabilities".

Ihor Fedirko, head of the Ukrainian Council of Defence Industry, told the BBC that Ukraine could scale up interceptor-drone production to up to 10,000 a month.

But any discussion of deliveries to partners abroad, however, would require political approval at the highest level in Ukraine, he said.

And even if Ukraine's top political leadership approved such transfers in the future, Fedirko warned that it would be much harder to provide allies with the training and expertise they need to learn how to use air defences effectively.

"The weapons are just plastic and metal, without teaching and training," he said.

"We can send you these goods. But what will you do with them? How will you apply the weaponry? Who will teach you?

"At the moment, our training centres in Ukraine are totally booked by our armed forces as well as our civilians."

A vote on President Donald Trump's proposed White House ballroom has been postponed after a commission overseeing changes received more than 32,000 comments, mostly in opposition, from the public.

They included accusations Trump is seeking a "gaudy, personalized palace", undertaking "personal vanity project" and "a complete razing of American history".

The East Wing of the White House was demolished in October to make way for construction of the ballroom, which would be larger than the existing White House and seat 1,000.

Trump administration officials have said demolition was more economical than renovating the East Wing and noted many presidents have made changes to the White House.

Nearly 100 people were scheduled to speak at a public forum on Thursday hosted by the National Capital Planning Commission (NPCC). The panel had been scheduled to vote during the forum but delayed the vote given the volume of feedback.

"We're going to take the time to deliberate, and we're going to have a final vote on April 2," NCPC chairman Will Scharf said at the beginning of the meeting.

The NPCC is a government commission that oversees planning for federal buildings and land in Washington DC.

The commission's executive director had recommended approving plans for the ballroom, saying the White House was responding to changing times and the "longstanding need" for permanent space to "host diplomatic and other state events".

That recommendation will be considered by the commission, along with the comments submitted by members of the public. Everyday Americans as well is historians and preservationists weighed in, including supporters.

"The reasons I've been exposed to of why President Trump wants the East Wing changed and every reason I've read was a good and firm reason," one wrote, encouraging the commission to back the project.

Among points of frustration expressed by others are the cost and the lack of public input before the East Wing was demolished.

"This is the People's House we expect due diligence in keeping with size, scale, purpose for this historical building. Stop the outrageous tackiness," one person wrote.

"I am outraged that this monstrous ballroom was designed and the construction of the original without any approval," another said. "This is the people's house and should have been authorized by the people."

The ballroom is projected to cost $400m (£298m), which is twice the original estimate. Trump has said private donors will be paying for its construction.

Though the White House and its adjoining parks are administered by the National Park Service (NPS), the president generally has broad powers to make renovations, a point of contention for some commenters.

"As someone who works in real estate, alongside of investors and developers, the fact that Trump doesn't have to follow the rules and regulations of obtaining proper permits and permissions like the rest of us do, is absurd and unethical," one wrote.

White House officials previously told members of the NPCC that the East Wing had "chronic water intrusion, accelerated deterioration and mould contamination".

"Because of this and other factors, the cost analysis proved that demolition and reconstruction provided the lowest total cost ownership and most effective long-term strategy," Josh Fisher, director of the White House Office of Administration, said.

The White House ballroom project is also expected to add a second story to the West Wing, which houses offices for staff as well as the president.

Ballroom architect Shalom Baranes said the building would span 22,000 sq ft and include two entry lobbies, a commercial kitchen, an office for the first lady and a movie theatre.

A nonprofit organisation tasked by the US Congress with helping preserve historic sites - the National Trust for Historic Preservation - sued the White House in December to stop construction of the ballroom.

The trust argued that the White House failed to seek necessary reviews and permissions before demolishing the East Wing and should have filed plans with the commission before starting construction.

A judge ruled last week that the preservation group raised the wrong legal claims against the president, and said that if the group brought a new challenge he would "expeditiously" reconsider. This, for now, allowed Trump to continue the construction.

Savannah Guthrie, a host of NBC's Today programme, has visited the network's office in New York as she makes plans to return to the airwaves while the search for her missing mother continues.

Guthrie's 84 year-old mother Nancy has been missing from her home in Arizona since 1 February, when authorities believe she was abducted. Few clues have emerged in the more than five weeks since.

Guthrie, meanwhile, has remained off air, although she has posted emotional pleas on social media for her mother's return.

Her co-host Jenna Bush Hager told viewers that Guthrie had visited and "she said that she has the intention to return to the show", but "I don't know when she's actually returning".

"Even though it feels like the hardest thing to do, it's also her home and where she feels so loved," said Bush Hager. "And she is beyond loved here."

No date has been set for Guthrie's return.Guthrie last appeared on the show on 30 January, two days before her mum's disappearance.

Guthrie also withdrew from NBC's Olympics Games coverage as the search for her mother intensified.

Last week the family offered a $1m (£750,000) reward for Nancy Guthrie's return.

The Pima County Sheriff's Office has said they believe her mother was "taken from the home against her will, possibly in the middle of the night and that includes possible kidnapping or abduction".

Investigators have released images of the prime suspect - a man captured on Nancy Guthrie's Nest doorbell camera.

Purported ransom notes demanding about $6m in cryptocurrency have been sent to media outlets, including one whose deadline expired on 9 February.

Detectives have received close to 40,000 tips from the public.

DNA evidence was recovered from a glove - similar to one worn by the suspect recorded on doorbell camera footage - that was found not far from her home, but it yielded no matches in a FBI database, authorities said.

Police have released video footage and recordings of 911 emergency calls from the hours surrounding the moment a gunman opened fire outside a bar in Austin - an attack being investigated as a potential act of "terrorism".

"There's people shot. We need help right now," one caller is heard telling police.

Footage from police body-cameras shows the chaotic scene as officers advance on the suspect, eventually shooting him to stop the attack. Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis described the video as "difficult to see".

Three people were killed and 13 injured in the shooting over the same weekend the US launched strikes on Iran, fuelling fears of violent retaliation against Americans.

Ryder Harrington, 19, Savitha Shan, 21, Jorge Pederson, 30, were killed outside the bar, which is popular with University of Texas students.

The suspect has been named as Ndiaga Diagne, a naturalised American citizen born in Senegal. Authorities have not commented on his motive.

Investigators searched the gunman's home and found an Iranian flag and pictures of Iranian leaders, US media reported.

CBS News, the BBC's US partner, reports that the gunman was wearing a shirt that resembles the Iranian flag under his hoodie.

In a news conference on Thursday, Austin police released the footage, as well as audio of the 911 emergency calls.

"As you can see, this was a chaotic scene," Police Chief Lisa Davis told reporters, adding that it was "overwhelming for many".

She praised officers for their response, and how they immediately began applying tourniquets to victims after the gunfight ended.

The disturbing video shows the suspect wearing a hoodie with the words "Property of Allah" as he fires with a semi-automatic rifle.

The FBI has said it is looking into whether there was a "nexus to terrorism".

Asked about the FBI, she said investigators are still examining the gunman's "digital evidence".

"We are not ready to talk about exactly what that nexus is," she said, praising the decision to bring in the FBI to assist her investigators.

Britney Spears has been arrested in California, US court documents show.

The singer was arrested by the California Highway Patrol at around 21:30 PT (05:30 GMT) on Wednesday.

She was released in the early hours of Thursday morning and is scheduled to appear in Ventura County Superior Court on 4 May.

The court documents do not confirm the reason for the singer's arrest.

The pop star appeared to have deleted her Instagram account on Thursday as news of her arrest broke.

Spears is one of the most successful pop stars in music history, with hits such as Toxic, Everytime, Gimme More, Womanizer, Stronger and Baby One More Time.

The singer said in January 2024 that she would "never return to the music industry". Her last song was a duet released with Elton John in 2022.

However, in a since deleted social media post from earlier this year, Spears indicated that, although she would not perform in the US again, she was hoping to play live in the UK and Australia in the near future.

For 13 years until 2021, Spears was in a conservatorship – a legal guardianship that saw her finances and personal life controlled by her father.

The singer published her memoir in 2023 titled The Woman in Me, which saw her reflect on her career and detail her struggles living under the conservatorship.

Her ex-husband Kevin Federline released his own memoir, You Thought You Knew, at the end of 2025.

China is not feeling the shock of war in the Middle East - yet.

But it is feeling the ripples.

In the short-term, it has enough oil supplies for several months, after which it could turn to neighbour Russia for help.

But China will be calculating what this could mean long-term - not just for its investments in the Middle East, but also for its ambitions.

This week, thousands of Communist Party delegates are meeting in Beijing to discuss a roadmap for the world's second-largest economy as it continues to battle low consumption, a prolonged property crisis and huge local debt.

For the first time since 1991, the Chinese government has lowered its expectations of economic growth, despite the rapid development in high-tech and renewables industries.

China may have hoped to export its way out of economic trouble. But it has spent a year fighting a trade war with the United States, and now faces the prospect of upheaval in the Middle East, which supplies both its major shipping routes and a lot of its energy needs.

The longer the war drags on, the more it could hurt, especially if traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked.

"A prolonged period of turmoil and insecurity in the Middle East will disrupt other regions of importance for China," says Philip Shetler-Jones from the Royal United Services Institute.

"African economies, for instance, have been the beneficiary of substantial and steady flows of Gulf capital. If the investment tide goes out, this risks wider instability that undermines the sustainability of China's broader and longer-term interests."

That is, given China's global footprint, its investments and markets beyond the Middle East are also vulnerable to a protracted war. And like so many other countries, China too is wary of this fresh bout of unpredictability.

"I think China is thinking the same as everyone else," says Professor Kerry Brown, from Kings College London. "What is the game plan? Surely the Americans didn't go into this with no game plan."

But then, he adds: "Probably, along with everyone else, they would also be thinking, oh God, they really have gone into this with no plan at all. Right, we don't want to get dragged into this like we don't want to get dragged into anything else, but we also need to do something."

Iran was always designated as an "ally" of China by many in the West.

They have certainly been very friendly. The last foreign trip taken by Tehran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was to Beijing in 1989. He had his photograph taken by the Great Wall.

The partnership between them deepened when Xi Jinping visited Tehran in 2016 and the two countries eventually signed a 25-year strategic partnership in 2021.

China promised to invest $400bn (£300bn) in Iran over 25 years and, in exchange, Iran would keep the oil flowing.

However, analysts believe only a fraction of that money has reached the Iranians. But the oil kept flowing.

China imported 1.38 million barrels of crude per day from Iran in 2025, according to the Center on Global Energy Policy - around 12% of China's total crude oil imports. Many of these barrels are alleged to have been relabelled as Malaysian to disguise their origin.

The research centre at Columbia University released a report claiming there are more than 46 million barrels of Iranian oil in floating storage in Asia, and even more in bonded storage, which is yet to be cleared by customs, in the Chinese ports of Dalian and Zhoushan, where the National Iranian Oil Company leases tanks.

There have also been allegations of arms sales between the two countries. China has denied selling Tehran anti-ship cruise missiles, but US intelligence has accused Beijing of supporting Iran's ballistic missile programme by training engineers and supplying components.

Rights groups have alleged that Iran's brutal crackdowns against protesters and critics of the regime has been fuelled by Chinese facial recognition and surveillance tech, shared by Beijing.

It may sound like the two were firm friends.

All of this even prompted tabloid headlines lumping China and Iran together as an "axis of upheaval" alongside North Korea and Russia. All four do want to challenge the US-led world order, but in truth their relationship was transactional.

"There's no real ideological or cultural reason why China would get on with Iran," Prof Brown says.

"China's almost 'divide and rule' strategy was sometimes well-served by Iran being a constant irritant to the US. So I think there are largely negative reasons for China wanting a relationship with Iran, rather than positive reasons.

"That's a really fragile basis for a relationship, and it worked - up to a point. But it wasn't a very deep relationship."

China does not view its "alliances" in the same way the West does. It does not sign mutual defence treaties and will not come rushing to its ally's aid.

Instead, Beijing is keen to stay out of any conflict.

But that does not mean China isn't deeply troubled by what is happening in the Middle East.

Beijing issued a predictable and muted condemnation and called for a ceasefire.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said it was "unacceptable for the US and Israel to launch attacks against Iran... still less to blatantly assassinate a leader of a sovereign country and instigate regime change".

The truth is Washington's actions in Venezuela in January, and now in Iran, have highlighted the limits of those countries' partnerships with China.

On both occasions, Beijing has been left on the sidelines as an observer, incapable of helping those within its orbit.

China is trying to position itself as a "responsible counter-balance" to the US, says Philip Shetler-Jones from the Royal United Services Institute, but "in terms of military balance, the US is demonstrating what being a superpower really means, which is the ability to force outcomes in theatres across the globe".

Beijing, he argues, is not "a superpower on the same level" despite its economic might. "It is not equipped to protect its friends against this kind of action, even if it wanted to."

To counter these concerns, Xi will continue positioning himself as a stable and predictable global leader, in contrast to Donald Trump.

"China's argument will be that Donald Trump has once again demonstrated beyond any doubt the extent of western hypocrisy and western talk of the liberal international order," says Professor Steve Tsang, director of the SOAS China institute.

Disruptions to energy supply and air travel as a result of this conflict will "have far greater ramifications economically in the Global South than in the West", he adds.

"Some countries are going to have food shortage in a few months... and those are Global South countries. We're also already seeing the rupturing of the Western alliance, with the UK, Spain, being singled out for attack."

Beijing may also see a chance to help mediate talks along with other countries. Foreign Minister Wang Yi has already spoken to his counterparts in Oman and France, and China has announced it will send a special envoy to the Middle East.

Still, China is treading carefully because one of the biggest calculations for them is the mercurial US president, who is due to arrive for a much-awaited meeting later this month.

None of China's criticisms of US and Israeli strikes on Iran have targeted Trump directly, which may make a handshake a little easier.

Some have speculated if the visit can still go ahead. But there are signs it is still on. Officials from both sides are due to meet to discuss the trip, Reuters reports.

China may see this as a chance to "look for cues", says Shetler-Jones, on how Trump may respond to other flashpoints like Taiwan, the self-governed island it claims.

"To the extent this war proves unpopular, it might contribute to a growing trend of 'restraint' in US foreign and security policy that – if put into effect by a future administration – give China a freer hand to pursue its interests in its own region and the wider world."

This crisis presents some in China with an opportunity to paint Washington as warmongers, which the People's Liberation Army has done across social media.

But having such "an unpredictable and a dysfunctional actor" may be a source of unease for Beijing, Prof Brown says.

"I don't think China wants a world that's dominated by the US, but they don't really want a world where the US is such an unstable actor."

The US House of Representatives has rejected an effort to curb President Donald Trump's ability to wage war in Iran, a day after a similar bid collapsed in the Senate.

The war powers resolution - rejected in a 219-212 vote along party lines - was largely ceremonial and was unlikely to survive an expected veto from the president.

Democrats have criticised Trump for launching strikes without congressional approval and questioned whether the US faced the kind of "imminent" threat that would legally allow him to take military action on his own.

The administration now says the war could last eight weeks - almost double the duration mentioned by Trump at the weekend.

If passed, the resolution would have stopped US military action in Iran without congressional approval.

Democrats in both chambers of Congress have argued that Trump was ignoring congressional input and not being clear about the reasons for war.

Some Republicans in the House and Senate said they blocked the resolution for now but could change course if the war expands.

Earlier this week, House Speaker Mike Johnson pushed against the resolution.

"The idea that we would take the ability of our commander in chief, the president, take his authority away right now to finish this job, is a frightening prospect to me," Johnson told reporters.

While the president has broad authority to launch military action without a formal declaration of war, Congress must be notified within 48 hours of hostilities beginning.

Speaker Johnson said the Trump administration had notified the "Gang of 8" - a bipartisan group of the top eight congressional leaders - ahead of the strikes.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has maintained the Trump administration complied with that requirement.

On Tuesday, Trump submitted a resolution to Congress, telling lawmakers that the threat from Iran had been "untenable" despite efforts to find a diplomatic solution.

Trump has previously ordered military operations without congressional approval, such as the US strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities last year, and the seizing of Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro in January.

"To begin with, no presidential administration has never accepted the War Powers Act as constitutional – not Republican presidents, not Democratic presidents," Rubio, a former senator, said.

Sir Keir Starmer has said he stands by his decision not to join the initial US-Israel strikes on Iran on Saturday, and said talks would be the best way forward.

At a Downing Street news conference, the PM said the UK had "the strength to stand by our values and our principles no matter the pressure to do otherwise".

The UK's longstanding position was that the best way forward was a "negotiated settlement with Iran where they give up their nuclear ambitions", he added, saying efforts should be made to "de-escalate" the conflict.

Sir Keir said the conflict could continue for "some time", as he announced the UK is sending four additional Typhoon fighter jets to Qatar.

US President Donald Trump has already criticised the prime minister for refusing to allow the use of UK bases in the initial strikes, and said he is "not Winston Churchill".

The UK agreed on Sunday to a US request to use British military bases but only for defensive strikes on Iranian missile sites.

Trump said the initial decision was "shocking" and that the UK-US relationship was "not what it was".

But Sir Keir insisted the special relationship between the US and the UK had not been fractured.

"Look, the special relationship is in operation right now," he told reporters on Thursday.

"We're sharing intelligence on a 24/7 basis in the usual way. That is the special relationship."

Sir Keir, who chaired a meeting of the government's emergency committee Cobra on Thursday, acknowledged that people are "worried sick about their family and friends who are caught up in this".

"We will do everything we can to protect British lives," he said.

The PM denied the UK was not prepared for the conflict, pointing out that Britain began pre-deploying assets to the region earlier this year - particularly Qatar and Cyprus - alongside the US and other allies.

It comes after the government faced criticism for its response when British bases in Bahrain and Cyprus were struck at the weekend.

"A lot of pre-planning has gone into this and a lot of pre-deployment," the prime minister said.

"I am satisfied we can keep our people safe."

Two wildcat helicopters with anti-drone-capabilities will also arrive in Cyprus on Friday.

The British warship HMS Dragon will also be deployed to Cyprus, although it is not due to sail until next week.

Earlier, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Sometimes the best way to de-escalate a situation is to try and finish it quickly, rather than let it drag out because you don't want to get involved.

"Once our bases had been attacked, I think we became part of this, whether we liked it or not."

Defence Secretary John Healey met his counterpart Vasilis Palmas in Cyprus on Thursday to discuss how the UK was reinforcing air defences to support "our shared security," the PM's spokesman said.

Sir Keir also said the first government-chartered flight for Britons stranded in the Middle East has taken off from Oman after it was delayed.

The repatriation flight from Oman was due to take off on Wednesday evening but it remained grounded after technical issues.

Sir Keir said that about 4,000 Britons had already made it home from the region, with thousands still stuck in the Middle East.

More than 140,000 people in the region have registered their presence with the UK government, he said.

A further seven flights are due to leave the UAE for the UK on Thursday, Sir Keir said, adding that the government will lay on additional charter flights in the coming days.

He said British Airways is putting on daily flights from Oman, and the government will keep working with partners to "increase the speed and capacity of this airlift".

Iran has retaliated to US-Israeli air strikes by launching attacks on Israel and US-allied states in the Gulf, including Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman and Saudi Arabia.

"The number of explosions, the destruction, what is happening - it's unbelievable," says Salar, whose name has been changed.

Iran's capital, Tehran, is under heavy attack since strikes began on 28 February, as the US and Israel target military and political sites in a bid to weaken the Islamic regime.

However, other areas have been hit as a consequence of the strikes. Iranian officials said more than 160 people, including children, were killed when a girls' school was hit in the city of Minab on Saturday. The White House says the US is investigating the incident but does not target civilians.

"What we are experiencing now is beyond what we experienced during the 12-day war," one local living in Tehran tells BBC Persian, referring to the conflict between Israel and Iran last year.

While some Iranians say the ongoing attacks have left them fearing for their families, others characterise the regime as fearful and express hope for the country's future.

The first wave of strikes killed Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but air attacks have shown little sign of relenting in the days since.

"Each day has felt like a month," Salar says. "The volume of attacks is so high."

He said a recent air strike left his whole house shaking and described having to leave his windows opens so the glass wouldn't shatter.

International news organisations are often refused visas to Iran, which severely limits their ability to gather information about what is going on inside the country. Internet blackouts make the situation even harder.

Most people are staying indoors, only venturing out for supplies. The regime appears to have increased its security presence on the streets, which Iranians have seen as a response to the dissent shown following the ayatollah's death.

"There are checkpoints everywhere. They're scared of their own shadows," says one 25-year old student in Tehran.

"We're waiting for the grand moment, the final moment, when we all go out and we will be victorious."

The price of staples like eggs and potatoes have also skyrocketed, he said, and the queues for petrol and bread "are unbelievable".

Another resident of the capital tells the BBC that most shops are closed and some cash machines out of service, though supermarkets and bakeries remain open.

Tehran feels "empty" and anyone leaving their home must have an "urgent reason", she says.

"On the first day, people were chanting and everyone seemed happy. But now there are police forces around."

Salar described threats from security forces about speaking out against the country's regime.

While getting access to independent information has been hard, Salar says Iranian security forces have been making their demands clear.

"Every day they send SMS messages warning that if we go outside, they will deal with us harshly," he says.

"A message came saying that if anyone among you goes out and protests 'we consider you Israeli collaborators'."

He believes the tone of the message suggested that anyone who disobeyed would be dealt with forcefully, or even killed.

BBC Persian also spoke to Kaveh, whose name has also been changed, who lives in Zanjan, a city around 275km (170 miles) north-east of Tehran, which has also been targeted.

"In the first three days, our city was heavily bombed," he says. "We live in an area where fighter jets constantly pass overhead."

He adds that, following the outbreak of war, the sky had been constantly cloudy from the columns of smoke rising from the sites of air strikes - an image he describes as "simultaneously beautiful and horrifying".

Salar says he sent his parents north, though he wasn't sure which cities would be safe. There house is in the Shariati neighbourhood of Tehran, where there are many military facilities that have been targeted.

"My mother was in very bad shape - she was very frightened," he says, adding that the current strikes are worse than any she experienced during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

More people continue to leave Tehran as each day passes, he adds, but it is not an option for everyone.

"My friend's grandmother is ill and they can't move her."

The internet blackouts have also made it extremely difficult for Iranians to contact their loved ones.

Kaveh says that, alongside survival, his biggest concerns have been trying to maintain some contact with family and friends, and getting access to reliable news.

His internet connection cut off around midday on the first day of the attacks, he recalls, and he was not able to get back online for two days.

Both Kaveh and Salar are using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), which allow them to access internet sites that are blocked by the Iranian government, but this is no easy feat.

When he does get online, Kaveh tries to help "friends outside Iran who have no news from their families - to get updates or pass along messages".

Due to the tight security situation in Iran, it is not possible to gauge the overall reaction to death of the supreme leader.

While some took to the streets to celebrate, others took part in public displays of mourning led by government authorities.

Kaveh found the news of Khamenei's killing difficult to believe at first.

"I had always imagined that moment would feel like happiness, but it didn't," he says.

"Almost all the years of my life and the lives of millions like me were destroyed and thousands lost their lives - and yet he himself was removed from the scene in a single moment, [which] made me truly angry."

Saleh says he didn't expect the celebrations on the street to news of the supreme leader's death.

"The city atmosphere after the attack was very security-heavy. It still is."

Neither of the men know what the war will mean for them, their families or their country.

"I doubt any of us will ever be the same as before," Salar says, adding that many people are severely stressed.

"Those abroad, especially monarchists," he says - referring to the supporters of the son of Iran's former royal family who have supported the US and Israeli military action - "really don't know what we are experiencing".

He adds: "I hope they never have to."

Kaveh says he feels the war "won't end as quickly as we thought".

"But even so, my hope hasn't decreased. If anything, it grows stronger each day."

"I don't know what will happen after this 'operation'," he says, but adds that, without it, "something worse would definitely have happened".

"This way, at least there is still a chance for life and for tomorrow."

Additional reporting by Alex Boyd, Ghoncheh Habibiazad, Caroline Hawley and Tom McArthur

The world's most famous dog show kicks off on Thursday and droves of pooches have begun to arrive.

More than 18,600 canines from across the globe will strut their paws around the halls of Birmingham's NEC for over the next three days with owners hoping to win the ultimate title of Best in Show at Crufts.

As well as the dogs being judged in their various categories - such as working, pastoral and terrier - competitions will be held to entertain the audience.

The competition starts on Thursday and runs until Sunday, when the Best in Show winner is crowned that evening.

Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.

On Sunday 1 February, a yellow, blue and white Sudan Airways jet landed on the runway at Khartoum International Airport. As 160 passengers stepped off the aircraft, they cheered, hugged each other and took selfies. This was only the second commercial flight to arrive in the city since 2023 - a significant milestone given the continued threat of drone attacks in a country riven by civil war.

Weeks earlier, Sudan's prime minister had declared 2026 would be "the year of peace". Kamil Idris spoke in January as the military-led government announced its ministries would return to the country's shattered capital.

Almost a year ago I saw Khartoum for myself - driving carefully around unexploded munitions on the tarmac, touring the wrecked passenger halls in the airport's terminal, just days after Sudan's army recaptured it from the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

The city had been the epicentre of a civil war that erupted in April nearly three years ago, leaving its centre a burnt-out shell and exiling the government to the safer haven of Port Sudan on the Red Sea.

The devastation was stunning: government ministries, banks and towering office blocks stood blackened and burned.

I toured the shattered presidential palace, even now still too damaged to be used, and the British embassy, its pockmarked, bullet-proof glass bearing testimony to intense fire fights, its rooms looted.

It felt then like a seismic moment in a war that has inflicted epic destruction, death, famine and human rights violations on civilians, plunging Sudan into what the UN has called "an abyss of unfathomable proportions".

On a later trip, I went to a tent camp in army-controlled territory to speak with people who'd managed to escape the fall of el-Fasher in October and heard stories of mass killings and sexual violence.

The takeover of the city in the western Darfur region was a major victory for the RSF. But the evidence of atrocities carried out by its fighters was such that it triggered an international outcry.

For a moment then, too, it had seemed that world powers might finally intervene to stop the endless suffering.

Yet despite the condemnations and expressions of horror, nothing changed and fighting continues to rage away from the capital - with the rest of the world's attention focused elsewhere on air strikes across the Middle East.

As the start of Sudan's dreadful conflict approaches its third anniversary, the flight may have offered a glimpse of normality - but the fundamentals underpinning the fighting remain untouched. So if international outrage has not been enough to overcome them, what could actually compel both sides to end the civil war?

Sudan has been at war in some form or another most of the time since its independence from British colonial rule in 1956 – 58 out of the past 70 years.

But the previous conflicts were fought on the periphery, away from Khartoum. This one has torn through the country's core, displacing unprecedented numbers of people, hardening divisions and threatening to split the nation.

It started as a power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the RSF, a paramilitary force appointed by and loyal to the country's long-time former military ruler Omar al-Bashir, who was deposed in 2019 following widespread public protests.

Bashir had empowered Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, widely known as Hemedti, to run the RSF as a praetorian guard to protect him against possible challenges from within the army.

Following Bashir's departure, tensions between Hemedti and the army chief Gen Abdel Fattah al-Burhan erupted into wider violence.

At first "there was a consensus that this is not a Sudanese war but a war within the security state", says the Sudanese political analyst Kholood Khair, founder of the Confluence Advisory think tank.

But then both sides broadened their coalitions and grafted their narratives onto grievances as old as the foundation of the state.

These are rooted in an embedded culture of cronyism and kleptocracy that sees Sudan's military controlling vast amounts of the country's economy. Hemedti, a camel trader turned successful businessman, accrued much wealth from his position as head of a powerful paramilitary force.

But as someone from the western Darfur region, he positioned himself as the champion of the disgruntled and of deprived areas beyond the capital.

He now frames the conflict in existential terms, declaring the RSF a revolutionary force aiming to dismantle the "1956 state" - shorthand for the military-dominated state apparatus - and to start again with its own self-declared rival government headquartered in Darfur.

The Sudanese Armed Forces also define the war as an existential struggle, a rebellion by a "terrorist militia".

"There is strong resistance within the army to legitimise the RSF in any way, including by accepting its control of territory through a ceasefire agreement," says Ahmed Soliman, a senior Horn of Africa researcher at the UK's Chatham House think tank.

Both sides have weaponised long-standing ethnic divides between the nomadic Arabs in the south and west – who form the core of RSF support – and the Nile Valley Arabs from cities and farms, who rule the country.

A regional history of ethnic violence in Darfur has also been reignited, with RSF Arab militias massacring non-Arab populations in atrocities that UN experts say show "hallmarks" of genocide.

On top of this, the war is being fuelled by foreign powers who have a direct stake in the outcome or see the conflict as a way to expand their influence.

There is widely documented evidence that the United Arab Emirates supplies weapons to the RSF – something Abu Dhabi officially denies.

Sudan's military has deployed Turkish and Iranian drones, and it has received political and other backing from Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Many think the best diplomatic hope is talks by the so-called Quad nations - the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt. This is a mechanism "to mediate between regional actors more so than it is the warring parties", says Chatham House's Soliman. But there are enormous obstacles to reaching an agreement.

The RSF has verbally accepted a Quad roadmap for peace beginning with a humanitarian truce, but neither side has formally responded and fighting has accelerated rather than abated.

Burhan, the army chief, says he cannot agree to the plan unless the RSF accepts conditions that amount to surrender. The army also opposes the involvement in the talks of the UAE, which it accuses of backing the RSF.

Furthermore, the roadmap explicitly rejects any Islamist influence in Sudan's future. Analysts such as Soliman see Abu Dhabi's hand here, as the Emiratis have made their antipathy to an Islamist-controlled government clear - a sentiment shared by many anti-war Sudanese civilians.

It's widely believed that's one of the reasons the UAE is motivated to back the RSF.

Islamist militias are an important part of the army war effort. And the Islamist establishment, although weakened by the 2019 revolution, still has influence.

That makes it difficult for Burhan to accept these terms.

US envoy Massad Boulos says he has a revised plan and is "cautiously optimistic" of getting agreement soon on a humanitarian truce.

But for a ceasefire to hold it would have to be accompanied by an agreement that regional backers stop arming the parties - and that will not be easy to achieve.

"Obviously, trying to produce a ceasefire when everyone's pouring weapons into the country doesn't work," says Alan Boswell, Horn of Africa analyst for the International Crisis Group.

Official ambiguity over the role of the UAE makes it a difficult part of the equation to solve.

Numerous investigative reports citing flight data and satellite images have documented the Emiratis' involvement in transferring weapons and mercenaries to RSF-controlled territory, with evidence the UN has called credible.

But Abu Dhabi forcefully denies this – and has told the BBC it "categorically rejects allegations that it has provided, financed, transported or facilitated any weapons, ammunition, drones, vehicles, guided munitions or other military equipment to the RSF, whether directly or indirectly".

The UAE has called for a full arms embargo across Sudan, something army supporters reject because they argue it creates parity between a militia and a national government, says Boswell.

"Those are the sort of bogs this ends up getting stuck in," he says.

Abu Dhabi's role came under increasing scrutiny after the RSF capture of el-Fasher following an 18-month siege, during which its forces recorded their own mass killings of unarmed people amid widespread accounts of sexual violence and detentions.

Just days after the city fell, I joined a call with seasoned humanitarian activists who were seething with anger and clear about which steps should be taken.

"The UAE cares immensely about how it curates its global reputation," says Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International. "The strongest point of leverage that Washington or anyone has is to puncture that public image. And so the US should be calling that out."

Secretary of State Marco Rubio came close to doing so.

"We know who the parties are that are involved (in weapons supply)," he said in November. "That's why they're part of the Quad along with other countries involved. Pressure is being applied to the relevant parties."

But Rubio did not name the party, and analysts agree the Trump administration is unlikely to do so, let alone apply pressure by targeting the UAE's assets, as suggested by advocacy groups.

"It's quite a difficult circle to square for them," says Khair, the Sudanese political analyst. "The US has to figure out how to allay the concerns of, as well as appease, its foreign friends who are actively involved in this war, in particular Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. And it hasn't yet figured out how to do that."

Soliman says that the US government has been "hedging its bets because it doesn't really want to choose between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which would damage wider relationships" with the countries involved.

The search for a solution is made harder by tussles involving nearby powers – with some analysts comparing Sudan's war to a modern-day scramble for Africa.

And the landscape has become even more tricky in recent months, as other members of the Quad become more actively involved in the war.

Egypt has begun bombing RSF supply convoys and other targets with a powerful model of Turkish combat drone from a remote airstrip near its south-western border with Sudan, according to investigations carried out by the New York Times and the Reuters News agency – something on which Cairo has not commented.

The escalation came after fighting moved closer to Egypt's border.

It may also have been influenced by more muscular support for the army from Saudi Arabia, as Riyadh seeks to push back on Emirati influence in the region.

Tensions between Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been building and in December relations between the two Gulf powers ruptured over the conflict in Yemen - with potential consequences for any chance of a solution in Sudan.

To achieve peace, talks would have to deal with the root causes of the conflict - particularly the fact that both sides have reasons why it might suit them for the war to continue.

If a ceasefire could be agreed, in the short term it could provide some respite to the civilians trapped in the world's worst humanitarian crisis – including 25 million people facing acute food shortages and 12 million people displaced.

But many fear it wouldn't lead to lasting peace.

"I don't really see a humanitarian truce working," says Boswell.

"It's become so existential that neither party would agree to stop their operations unless it was part of a broader deal that sorted out the most important questions of what comes next, because neither side would trust the other to actually stop."

And although this is a national struggle between two powerhouses of Sudan's security state, it is being driven at the local level by marginalised ethnic groups – allied to the RSF – who see it as their chance to get better access to resources and better representation, or just to get their slice of the war economy.

At the same time, the Islamist establishment has seen opportunity in the war.

"They don't want it to end before they've positioned themselves for a comeback," says Kholood Khair.

There is also the question of accountability. The army and the paramilitaries, along with their allied militias, all stand accused of war crimes, ethnically targeted atrocities and the mass killings of civilians - raising the prospect of post-war prosecutions for military leaders.

So political negotiations would most likely need to include a formula for armed actors to retain some of their gains and soften some of the consequences of laying down their weapons. But even this might not be enough.

Civilian rule – the stated goal of the Quad roadmap – would also mean a loss of income for the security forces, Khair adds.

"A permanent end to the conflict would require demilitarising Sudan and a new constitution that enshrines rights and access to resources," she says, but these "are precisely the things that the security complex in Sudan does not want".

Effective and dedicated mediation would also be required. But while the Trump administration has made serious efforts, its staying power and attention span are in question.

"The US isn't going to be involved in a peace process for the long haul," says Soliman. "And nobody else is presenting a coherent follow-up mechanism."

In September 2024 I asked a senior Sudanese defence official how long he thought the war would last – ominously, he compared the conflict to America's 20-year battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

He needn't have looked that far afield. History shows all of Sudan's wars have been long - one of them lasted more than 20 years.

But another protracted conflict could bring with it new dangers – including the potential for the country to split, or fragment.

"We're only in year three of this war," says Khair. "If it continues for another 10, 15, 20 years, as history tells us is likely, then we could see the balkanisation of Sudan."

That is a worrying scenario for the entire region.

Already the conflict has drawn in Sudan's neighbours - all seven of them are hosting Sudanese refugees. There's evidence some are serving as conduits for RSF weapons and other supplies, as well as warning signs that the violence could cross borders and aggravate internal tensions.

Perhaps the dangers of a destructive stalemate might eventually lead the powerful backers of Sudan's warring parties to rethink their strategies, says Soliman.

"A fragmented, insecure and highly unstable Sudan is not beneficial to them," he says. "That's the one grain I hope will push the regional actors to come together at some point to make some concessions and chart a way forward. I don't envisage anything else being feasible."

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. Emma Barnett and John Simpson bring their pick of the most thought-provoking deep reads and analysis, every Saturday. Sign up for the newsletter here

In a small flat in a social housing complex near Caracas, Adriana Briceño holds up what looks like a piece of rubbish, but hidden on the old chocolate bar wrapper is a message.

The words scrawled on it were written by her son and are addressed to Ángel Godoy, the boy's father and Briceño's husband, while Ángel Godoy was a prisoner in Venezuela's notorious El Helicoide jail.

"Daddy, take this to sweeten things a little," reads the blue ink. "We love you."

Originally built in the 1950s as a luxury shopping centre, El Helicoide was never completed and was later taken over by Venezuela's feared intelligence services.

It became a symbol of government repression.

A United Nations investigation documented it was where people who had been arbitrarily arrested or forcibly disappeared were taken and, in some cases, tortured.

Recently released detainees like Godoy have described brutal conditions in interviews with the BBC.

He is one of the hundreds of political prisoners arrested under President Nicolás Maduro and held in Venezuela's vast detention system, sometimes for years.

More than 600 people have been released since Maduro was seized by US forces in a military operation at the start of January, but according to prisoners' rights group Foro Penal, hundreds more are still behind bars.

Godoy is one of two inmates who has described to the BBC the punishment cells, enforced isolation and threats to family members that they faced before they were released.

"They handcuffed me, beat me, insulted me, and put a balaclava on me as they put me inside a patrol car," says rights activist Javier Tarazona, as he describes the moment he was arrested in July 2021.

He knew he was on the radar of Venezuela's state security agencies, but he still found it difficult to process what was going on.

"The first few hours were terrible," Tarazona says, recalling the beginning of an ordeal that would last more than four and a half years.

After his arrest, he was taken to a tiny punishment cell, where all new prisoners were sent. It was infested with rats and cockroaches, and smelt "nauseating".

Tarazona, the head of human rights NGO Fundaredes, came to the attention of the authorities because he had called for a formal investigation to be launched into alleged links between high-ranking Venezuelan government officials and guerrilla groups in neighbouring Colombia.

He was arrested alongside his brother, José. The pair were held together with another activist in a tiny cell.

The room was so small, they had to take turns if they wanted to lie down, and placed a piece of cardboard over a sewer hole as a makeshift mattress.

Prisoners' rights group Foro Penal says these small punishment cells, known as "little tigers", are a common feature of the Venezuelan prison system.

"We spent 46 days there," Tarazona says. "Then they decided to move us to another space off the same hallway, which was a little bigger, but just as disgusting - just as depressing."

They could not see daylight and had no way to work out if it was day or night. The guards used to give them meals at irregular hours to mess with their sense of time, he adds.

For Godoy, the biggest strain was not the conditions he was kept in but being separated from his loved ones - "the torture of not knowing where your family members are, how they are, because they cut you off - they isolate you from the world".

​​The political activist says he was detained without warning outside of his home by a large group of security officials.

He was then held without any contact with his family for 96 days. "I have to assume the aim is to break you," he says of that period.

After more than three months had passed, he says one of the prison staff told him that the authorities were considering allowing his wife, Adriana, to phone him, but only if she agreed to tone down her presence on social media and in the press.

Adriana Briceño says that following her husband's arrest she was fired from her job at the state-run telecoms company without being given a reason, even though she had worked there for 21 years.

She said that being alone at home with her son made her feel so vulnerable, she decided to move. "I was terrified that people might show up and break into my home."

For the first few weeks after her husband's arrest, she did not even know where he was being held.

It took 25 days for officials to finally confirm that he was inside El Helicoide, and only then was she allowed to take him clothes, medicine and bed sheets.

It took even longer - 96 days - for her to be granted regular visits.

Tarazona says his family also came under pressure from the authorities.

"In the middle of an interrogation, an official said: 'Do you know this woman?'"

The official was holding a photo of Tarazona's 70-year-old mother, whom authorities had arrested.

Tarazona says the man then issued a threat: "Give me the video I'm asking for, or your mother will go to jail."

The prison authorities wanted Javier to agree to be recorded accusing other activists of committing crimes.

"I always refused," he says. "I always refused because I knew my mother would overcome that ordeal." Hours later, she was released.

Another issue weighed on Tarazona's mind, though. He felt responsible for his brother ending up in jail alongside him.

His brother was not part of the NGO Tarzona had been running. He had just been driving him on the day of the arrest.

"I felt a great deal of guilt," Tarazona explains. "My brother kept telling me that because of my fight, he was paying for something that wasn't his responsibility. And that was a burden."

Both Tarazona and Godoy deny committing any of the crimes they were accused of and say they never received proper legal representation after they were detained.

Tarazona says he was denied the right to hire his own lawyer and was only allowed to see a court-appointed one seven months after he was imprisoned, even though he was facing charges of treason, terrorism, and incitement to hatred.

During his 1,675 days in detention, he says he saw a lawyer fewer than five times.

Godoy was charged with terrorism, hate crimes, and incitement to armed action, but says he never saw the case file against him and never knew who his defence lawyer was, despite being held for over a year.

BBC Mundo contacted Venezuela's attorney general, the ministry of information, and the ministry of defence for comment on the allegations made by former prisoners, but had not received a response by the time of publication.

Tarazona says he has not allowed the experience to make him angry. During his imprisonment, the guards discovered a book and some letters he had been writing.

As punishment he was placed in an isolation cell.

"I found light in that ordeal and from that pain," he explains. "I found an opportunity to reflect and work on forgiveness.

"I left convinced that Venezuelans need to move towards reconciliation, to come together again, because this situation we are living through is a tragedy, a trans-generational trauma."

Back at her family home, Adriana Briceño holds up an old T-shirt with a few sentences scrappily scrawled on it in pen.

The messages on chocolate bars were how the family would send notes to Godoy in prison, and this was how he would reply – by writing on dirty laundry taken out of the jail.

"Adriana, you are the most beautiful woman in the world," it reads. There is also message to his son: "Go and excel in your classes, okay?"

"Ways of sending messages like this emerged in El Helicoide," Godoy says. "They served as a bridge between many prisoners and their families."

Though he had been allowed visits from his wife following the agreement they made with authorities, these secret, personal messages still meant a lot to them.

Venezuela's interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, told the country's parliament in January that El Helicoide would be turned into a social, sports and cultural centre for police families and communities in the surrounding area.

While the release of prisoners from the jail has been welcomed, some rights groups have described this move as an attempt to whitewash the facility's past.

Like Tarazona, Godoy hopes the country can move forward peacefully.

"After all that abuse, after all that cruelty, after all that evil, it seems unbelievable that I'm asking people, [that] I'm asking my fellow political prisoners, too, to get that out of here, out of our hearts," he says. "Every trace of hatred, of resentment, of bitterness, of discontent."

"Let the country's interests come first, regardless of political party or ambition. Let us move forward without hatred, resentment, or bitterness to build that wonderful Venezuela."

Produced and edited by Peter Ball

More than 200 people, including 70 children, have been killed after a landslide caused a collapse in a mining area in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the government says.

The landslide struck Rubaya, the country's biggest source of coltan - an ore vital in the electronics industry - in the rebel-controlled east on Tuesday following heavy rains.

In a statement, the mines ministry blamed the tragedy on M23 rebels and said they were allowing illegal mining without proper safety standards.

The M23 are yet to comment but a source in Rubaya told the BBC the collapse was caused by attacks from government forces and only six had died. The government has not responded to the claim.

The mines in Rubaya are thought to hold about 15% of the world's coltan supply and half of the DR Congo's total deposits.

The metallic ore contains tantalum, which is used to produce high-performance capacitors in a range of electronic devices, making it in high demand worldwide.

Since 2024, the M23 have been in control of Rubaya, which lies about 70 km (45 miles) west of Goma, the capital of North Kivu province.

The authorities said rescue efforts after Tuesday's landslide were hampered by dangerous conditions, which they blamed on restrictions imposed by rebels on civilians.

The mines ministry added that the lack of official oversight at the site had left workers without basic safety protections.

"The provisional toll counts more than 200 compatriots who lost their lives, including 70 children and numerous wounded," the ministry said in a statement.

The BBC was unable to independently verify the death toll in the remote area, where humanitarian agencies and major medical facilities have little or no access, and telecommunications are frequently disrupted.

Many of the injured have been evacuated to hospitals in Goma.

The Congolese authorities said they had banned mining in the area last year, even though the rebels had already seized control of the mines by then.

When a BBC team visited the site in July 2025, they observed miners digging manually to source the precious mineral. Conditions at the site are very bad, with dangerous pits dotted around its vast expanse.

Over the past year, the M23 has made rapid advances across the mineral-rich east of DR Congo, taking more areas where coltan is mined.

UN experts say there is evidence that minerals from DR Congo are being exported through Rwanda.

The experts have also accused Rwanda of backing the M23 - an opinion supported by the US government this week which imposed sanctions on the Rwandan army and four of its senior commanders.

Rwanda has rejected these accusations.

The Rubaya mining site was recently added to a shortlist of assets that is being offered to the US by the Congolese government under a minerals cooperation framework, according to the Reuters news agency.

A similar collapse at the site in late January following heavy rainfall killed more than 200 people.

Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.

Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica

Millions of Nepalis have voted in the country's first general election since violent youth-led protests toppled the government last September.

Corruption, economic stagnation and inequality were the main issues in the vote. They sparked the uprising in which 77 people died, many of them protesters shot by police.

The election represents a crossroads for Nepal, pitting the establishment against a new generation of politicians advocating for angry, young Gen Z voters hungry for change.

Counting the votes cast for parliament's 275 seats is expected to take several days, and results are not expected before next week.

Nepal's mountainous terrain makes it slow and difficult to transport ballots, which are tallied by hand.

Nearly 19 million people, including almost a million first-time voters, were registered to take part in the 5 March ballot for the House of Representatives.

Voting was largely peaceful, and there was a huge security presence across the country.

Leading candidates include KP Sharma Oli, the prime minister toppled in the protests, and Balen Shah, a former rapper who resigned as Kathmandu mayor in January to take him on in his constituency in the Jhapa 5 seat, one of the key election races.

For Oli, the election will be a major test. He and his party, the Communist Party of Nepal UML, have insisted the protests were not a referendum on his leadership, and that he is still beloved by the public. He told the BBC he's confident he will win this election.

The leader of the Nepali Congress, Gagan Thapa, believes younger voters are tired of "unholy alliances" and "poor governance" in previous coalitions, and that the party is listening to Gen Z voters.

Balen Shah, who is representing the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), refused to speak directly to the press on Thursday, staying true to form, turning up in his signature black sunglasses and storming through a crowd of journalists.

It's a trend Nepal's media worry would continue if he took office. Yet, many of the young voters we've spoken to believe his youth and energy are exactly what the country needs, and that he represents a new chapter in Nepal's future.

Both Oli and Thapa's parties, which have been in government numerous times, have been clear in their messaging, in suggesting they have heard the calls for change. Whether voters agree remains to be seen.

Rakshya Bam - one of Nepal's Gen Z leaders - was largely unimpressed.

"I think none of the parties have incorporated the pact that was signed between the government and the Gen Z in their election manifestos," she told the BBC ahead of the vote.

"They want to sell the name of Gen Z and come into power so they are using the term Gen Z movement… I don't have much expectations from the elections."

Ispa Sapkota, who spoke to the BBC as she cast her ballot in Kathmandu, said she protested in September to "end corruption" and to restore "political stability" in Nepal.

"We want a better nation," she says. "When I and others search for jobs, we're not able to get any here. Brain drain is becoming the most important problem in our country".

If Balen Shah wins, it would represent a seismic shift from the governance that has paralysed Nepal. For more than three decades, the country has seen a revolving door of coalition governments, largely dominated by three parties, two of them communist.

This election will test whether Gen Z voters have succeeded in convincing the rest of the country that it is time for a new, untried generation to shape their future, or whether veteran heavyweights that have dominated for decades will keep hold of power.

Of the 275 seats in the lower house, 165 will be elected through first-past-the-post voting, meaning the candidate with the most votes wins the seat. The other 110 MPs will be selected via proportional representation, which takes into account the proportion of votes cast for a political party.

The election commission has promised to finish counting by 9 March, and to release the results of the 165 directly elected seats within 24 hours from when counting starts. But the process of collecting ballot boxes from across the mountainous country and delivering them to count centres typically takes at least a day.

It could take another two to three days to tally the results of the proportional representation vote, officials said.

A new government, formed on the basis of the seats won by political parties, will have a responsibility to lead the reforms and address issues like corruption and good governance.

Samikshya KC, who voted in Kathmandu, chose not to participate in the protests, but says she supported the Gen Z movement.

"Nepal is becoming very corrupt," she told the BBC. "I'm hoping for a big change."

She wants the next government to develop all of Nepal, and not just the capital.

"There are so many remote places in our country; let there be some progress there too. Whatever happens, let it be good."

A suspect in the killing of three women in the US state of Utah has been taken into custody in neighbouring Colorado.

Authorities received a call that two women's bodies had been discovered on a hiking trail in Wayne County on Wednesday. Investigators then found a third woman dead at a residence nearby, according to the Utah Department of Public Safety.

They tracked a possible killer, who was driving one of the victims' cars, through the south-eastern part of the state, a remote region with many public lands, the department said.

One woman was in her 30s, another in her 60s, and the third woman was in her 80s, the department said. The victims have not been publicly identified.

The suspect in the triple homicide drove through Arizona into Colorado, where he was arrested "without incident" by Colorado law enforcement on Thursday morning, the Utah public safety department said.

Investigators do not believe the suspect, a 22-year-old man from Iowa, has any connection to the victims, according to 2KUTV, an affiliate of BBC's US partner, CBS News.

Wayne County has a relatively small population of about 2,500 and many of its schools and businesses closed during Wednesday's manhunt.

Rachel Zegler has been nominated for an Olivier Award, for her leading role in a production of Evita that saw her sing from the London Palladium's outdoor balcony.

The US actress appeared in Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's musical last year, and made headlines for leaving the stage during each performance to perform Don't Cry For Me Argentina to the general public.

Other actors nominees at this year's Oliviers include Cate Blanchett, Bryan Cranston, Tom Hiddleston, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Rosamund Pike and Paapa Essiedu.

Paddington the Musical and a new production of Stephen Sondheim's Into The Woods have the most nominations overall, with 11 each.

The main nominees

11 nominations - Paddington the Musical, Into The Woods

6 - Kenrex, All My Sons, Stereophonic

5 - Evita

4 - Punch, The Producers

Zegler's triumphant appearance in Jamie Lloyd's adaptation of Evita came after a shaky start to the year, when she starred in a troubled live-action remake of Snow White.

A headline-grabbing stunt for Evita, which saw her perform on the outdoor balcony every night, drew huge crowds to the concourse outside the Palladium, sparking a debate about whether it was fair to the ticket buyers sitting inside the theatre.

Cranston, Jean-Baptiste and Essiedu are all nominated for a new production of Arthur Miller's play All My Sons.

Blanchett is recognised for her role in Chekhov's The Seagull, Tom Hiddleston for Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, and Pike for Suzie Miller's Inter Alia.

Best revival

• All My Sons
• Arcadia
• Much Ado About Nothing
• The Seagull

Best musical revival

• American Psycho
• Evita
• Into The Woods
• The Producers

Best new play

• 1536
• Inter Alia
• Kenrex
• Punch

Best new musical

• Here We Are
• Paddington The Musical
• Shucked
• The Unlikely Pilgrimage Of Harold Fry

Best actress

• Cate Blanchett, The Seagull
• Marianne Jean-Baptiste, All My Sons
• Julia McDermott, Weather Girl
• Rosamund Pike, Inter Alia
• Rosie Sheehy, Guess How Much I Love You?

Best actor

• Bryan Cranston, All My Sons
• Tom Hiddleston, Much Ado About Nothing
• Sean Hayes, Good Night, Oscar
• Jack Holden, Kenrex
• David Shields, Punch

Best actress in a musical

• Katie Brayben, Into The Woods
• Danielle Fiamanya & Georgina Onuorah, Brigadoon
• Jane Krakowski, Here We Are
• Jenna Russell, The Unlikely Pilgrimage Of Harold Fry
• Rachel Zegler, Evita

Best actor in a musical

• Marc Antolin, The Producers
• James Hameed & Arti Shah, Paddington The Musical
• Andy Nyman, The Producers
• Jamie Parker, Into The Woods
• Diego Andres Rodriguez, Evita

Best supporting actor

• Hammed Animashaun, Dealer's Choice
• Paapa Essiedu, All My Sons
• Zachary Hart, The Seagull
• Zachary Hart, Stereophonic
• Giles Terera, Oh, Mary!

Best supporting actress

• Isis Hainsworth, Arcadia
• Julie Hesmondhalgh, Punch
• Lucy Karczewski, Stereophonic
• Hayley Squires, All My Sons
• Sophie Thompson, When We Are Married

Best supporting actor in a musical

• Trevor Ashley, The Producers
• Corbin Bleu, The Great Gatsby
• Tom Edden, Paddington The Musical
• Jo Foster, Into The Woods
• Oliver Savile, Into The Woods

Best supporting actress in a musical

• Tracie Bennett, Here We Are
• Amy Booth-Steel, Paddington The Musical
• Kate Fleetwood, Into The Woods
• Victoria Hamilton-Barritt, Paddington The Musical
• Georgina Onuorah, Shucked

Best director

• Jordan Fein, Into The Woods
• Luke Sheppard, Paddington The Musical
• Ed Stambollouian, Kenrex
• Lyndsey Turner, 1536
• Ivo van Hove, All My Sons

Best new entertainment or comedy play

• The Comedy About Spies
• Every Brilliant Thing
• Oh, Mary!
• Paranormal Activity

Best new dance production

• Into The Hairy
• Mimi's Shebeen
• Random Taranto
• She's Auspicious

Best new production in affiliate theatre

• Ben And Imo
• The Glass Menagerie
• The Ministry Of Lesbian Affairs
• Miss Myrtle's Garden
• The Shitheads

Best family show

• The Boy At The Back Of The Class
• The Boy With Wings
• The Firework Maker's Daughter
• The Three Little Pigs

Best new opera production

• Dead Man Walking
• The Makropulos Case
• Tosca
• Die Walküre

Best sound design

• Adam Fisher, Into The Woods
• Gareth Owen, Paddington The Musical
• Ryan Rumery, Stereophonic
• Giles Thomas, Kenrex

Outstanding musical contribution

• Matt Brind, Paddington The Musical
• Will Butler & Justin Craig, Stereophonic
• John Patrick Elliott, Kenrex
• Chris Fenwick & Sean Hayes, Good Night, Oscar

Best lighting design

• Robbie Butler, Punch
• Jon Clark, Evita
• Aideen Malone & Roland Horvath, Into The Woods
• Joshua Pharo, Kenrex

Best set design

• Paul Tate dePoo III, The Great Gatsby - A New Musical
• Tom Pye & Ash J Woodward, Paddington The Musical
• Tom Scutt, Into The Woods
• David Zinn, Stereophonic

Best costume design

• Enver Chakartash, Stereophonic
• Linda Cho, The Great Gatsby
• Tom Scutt, Into The Woods
• Gabriella Slade & Tahra Zafar, Paddington The Musical

Best theatre choreographer

• Fabian Aloise, Evita
• Ellen Kane, Paddington The Musical
• Drew McOnie, Brigadoon
• Lynne Page, American Psycho

Police have released video footage and recordings of 911 emergency calls from the hours surrounding the moment a gunman opened fire outside a bar in Austin - an attack being investigated as a potential act of "terrorism".

"There's people shot. We need help right now," one caller is heard telling police.

Footage from police body-cameras shows the chaotic scene as officers advance on the suspect, eventually shooting him to stop the attack. Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis described the video as "difficult to see".

Three people were killed and 13 injured in the shooting over the same weekend the US launched strikes on Iran, fuelling fears of violent retaliation against Americans.

Ryder Harrington, 19, Savitha Shan, 21, Jorge Pederson, 30, were killed outside the bar, which is popular with University of Texas students.

The suspect has been named as Ndiaga Diagne, a naturalised American citizen born in Senegal. Authorities have not commented on his motive.

Investigators searched the gunman's home and found an Iranian flag and pictures of Iranian leaders, US media reported.

CBS News, the BBC's US partner, reports that the gunman was wearing a shirt that resembles the Iranian flag under his hoodie.

In a news conference on Thursday, Austin police released the footage, as well as audio of the 911 emergency calls.

"As you can see, this was a chaotic scene," Police Chief Lisa Davis told reporters, adding that it was "overwhelming for many".

She praised officers for their response, and how they immediately began applying tourniquets to victims after the gunfight ended.

The disturbing video shows the suspect wearing a hoodie with the words "Property of Allah" as he fires with a semi-automatic rifle.

The FBI has said it is looking into whether there was a "nexus to terrorism".

Asked about the FBI, she said investigators are still examining the gunman's "digital evidence".

"We are not ready to talk about exactly what that nexus is," she said, praising the decision to bring in the FBI to assist her investigators.

Former Scotland rugby union captain Stuart Hogg has been stripped of his MBE, according to the UK's official public record The Gazette.

In 2024 Hogg pleaded guilty to a domestic abuse charge against his by then estranged wife Gillian and was subsequently given a one-year community payback order.

He had been given an MBE in the 2024 New Year honours for his services to rugby.

However, the notice in The Gazette said that would now be "cancelled and annulled".

Former Glasgow Warriors fullback Hogg amassed a century of senior caps for his country and was involved in three British and Irish Lions tours.

He now plays with Montpellier and remains one of Scotland's all-time leading try scorers and was awarded the MBE for his services to the sport.

After he admitted shouting and swearing and acting in an abusive manner towards his estranged wife there were calls to strip him of the honour.

Now his name has appeared on a list of people to have their honours taken away.

The full notice in the Gazette reads: "The King has directed that the appointment of Stuart William Hogg to be a Member of the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, dated 30 December 2023 shall be cancelled and annulled and that his name shall be erased from the Register of the said Order."

Sooner or later, advisers in President Donald Trump's orbit all come to learn the same unwritten rule: no one can outshine the boss.

Kristi Noem, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, became the latest reminder of that on Thursday when Trump announced he was removing her from her post as the face of the administration's crackdown on immigration.

Noem will be replaced by Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin at the end of the month, Trump said in a post on Truth Social. He said Noem would move to a new job as special envoy for a new US security initiative in the Western Hemisphere called The Shield of the Americas.

"I thank Kristi for her service at "Homeland",' Trump said.

It ends Noem's controversial tenure at the top of the department, which is tasked with carrying out the president's sweeping immigration agenda.

Noem was one of the administration's brightest stars when she stepped into the role last year after Trump returned to the White House. She immediately gained attention for joining immigration raids, often appearing in a bulletproof vest alongside field agents carrying out enforcement actions.

She was a vocal advocate of Trump's deportation drive, and touted policies that effectively closed the US-Mexico border. She also took the message abroad, in one instance visiting a maximum-security prison in El Salvador that took in some migrants deported from the US.

But Noem's unconventional approach courted controversy from the start.

Homeland Security secretaries do not typically partake in field operations. Noem's decision to appear on the frontlines of Trump's immigration crackdown was viewed by critics as an effort to burnish her image as the tough-talking immigration enforcer-in-chief.

She sparked a backlash by wearing a $50,000 watch during her visit to CECOT, the notorious prison in El Salvador. Noem also appeared on horseback in a DHS advertising campaign calling for undocumented immigrants to leave the US.

This led some of Noem's critics on the left to brand her "ICE Barbie". Democrats in Congress also blasted Noem for spending $220 million in federal funding on an advertising blitz starring herself, and nearly $200 million on two luxury jets for her official travel.

Noem defended the ad campaign in a Capitol Hill hearing earlier this week and said Trump was aware of the spending.

But Trump publicly contradicted Noem on Thursday before announcing her firing, telling Reuters he was not aware of the expensive campaign. "I never knew anything about it," he said.

The president had an acrimonious call with Corey Lewandowski, a senior adviser to Noem, on Tuesday after her testimony to Congress, the BBC's US news partner CBS reported. Lewandowski is also now leaving the department.

Trump is reported to have called Republicans in Congress asking if he should fire Noem, a sign he was moving towards shaking up his immigration team this week. It is perhaps telling that some immediately backed his decision on Tuesday.

South Carolina's Lindsey Graham, for example, said "it was time for a change".

"A change in leadership at the Department of Homeland Security was long overdue," Representative Dan Newhouse said.

But Trump's frustration with Noem had been clear for months if not longer. The administration faced a major backlash for its immigration crackdown in Minneapolis in January, after federal agents shot dead two US citizens.

Trump sent White House border czar Tom Homan to Minneapolis to lead the response, which resulted in a decision to scale back the operation. Homan's appointment was widely viewed as a rebuke to Noem, who might normally have been given the assignment.

Noem was also criticised for comments she made after the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, particularly her claim, made without evidence, that Pretti had "committed an act of domestic terrorism" before he was shot.

The deployment of Homan to take charge in Minnesota was a clear indication that Trump was sidelining Noem after giving her the freedom to act as the administration's immigration enforcement star.

The administration response to the killings of Good and Pretti in Minneapolis was a rare instance of Trump moderating his message on immigration - and a sign the White House was aware the hardline approach spearheaded by Noem was growing unpopular with the public.

Polls have indicated that a majority of Americans approve of some aspects of Trump's immigration agenda, but do not support the more aggressive tactics used by immigration agents in the field. That presents an issue for Republicans heading into an election year, and Noem's removal suggests Trump saw a need to make a change.

It is also the first major shakeup of Trump's second-term cabinet.

In his first term, Trump replaced his national security adviser, White House chief of staff and other top officials in his first year in office, oftentimes by announcing the firing in a Tweet. The turmoil in his team frequently overshadowed Trump's policies.

By contrast, Trump has kept his cabinet largely intact in his second term, avoiding the drama that engulfed his first stint in the White House. Whether Noem's departure means others will follow remains to be seen.

It is also an open question whether the shakeup will lead to a new direction in policy at the Deeartment of Homeland Security.

Mullin is a conservative Trump ally, and like Noem has long been a hardline immigration voice on the right. After Pretti's shooting Mullin said federal law enforcement officials were "patriots" facing death threats for doing their job.

"Obstructing federal law enforcement is a felony. Most Americans follow ICE instructions without thinking twice," Mullin said in a social media post.

More recently, he has criticised Democrats over a partial government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. The agency has been caught in a funding battle over proposed reforms to immigration enforcement.

In a scene reminiscent of Trump's first term, Noem was delivering a speech in the moments when Trump posted his social media message announcing her firing. She soon published a social media post of her own, thanking Trump for her new role.

Noem may be the first high-profile casualty of Trump's second term. But she may not be the last, as her demotion shows the president remains willing and able to read the political winds and cut his losses early.

Sir Keir Starmer has said he stands by his decision not to join the initial US-Israel strikes on Iran on Saturday, and said talks would be the best way forward.

At a Downing Street news conference, the PM said the UK had "the strength to stand by our values and our principles no matter the pressure to do otherwise".

The UK's longstanding position was that the best way forward was a "negotiated settlement with Iran where they give up their nuclear ambitions", he added, saying efforts should be made to "de-escalate" the conflict.

Sir Keir said the conflict could continue for "some time", as he announced the UK is sending four additional Typhoon fighter jets to Qatar.

US President Donald Trump has already criticised the prime minister for refusing to allow the use of UK bases in the initial strikes, and said he is "not Winston Churchill".

The UK agreed on Sunday to a US request to use British military bases but only for defensive strikes on Iranian missile sites.

Trump said the initial decision was "shocking" and that the UK-US relationship was "not what it was".

But Sir Keir insisted the special relationship between the US and the UK had not been fractured.

"Look, the special relationship is in operation right now," he told reporters on Thursday.

"We're sharing intelligence on a 24/7 basis in the usual way. That is the special relationship."

Sir Keir, who chaired a meeting of the government's emergency committee Cobra on Thursday, acknowledged that people are "worried sick about their family and friends who are caught up in this".

"We will do everything we can to protect British lives," he said.

The PM denied the UK was not prepared for the conflict, pointing out that Britain began pre-deploying assets to the region earlier this year - particularly Qatar and Cyprus - alongside the US and other allies.

It comes after the government faced criticism for its response when British bases in Bahrain and Cyprus were struck at the weekend.

"A lot of pre-planning has gone into this and a lot of pre-deployment," the prime minister said.

"I am satisfied we can keep our people safe."

Two wildcat helicopters with anti-drone-capabilities will also arrive in Cyprus on Friday.

The British warship HMS Dragon will also be deployed to Cyprus, although it is not due to sail until next week.

Earlier, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Sometimes the best way to de-escalate a situation is to try and finish it quickly, rather than let it drag out because you don't want to get involved.

"Once our bases had been attacked, I think we became part of this, whether we liked it or not."

Defence Secretary John Healey met his counterpart Vasilis Palmas in Cyprus on Thursday to discuss how the UK was reinforcing air defences to support "our shared security," the PM's spokesman said.

Sir Keir also said the first government-chartered flight for Britons stranded in the Middle East has taken off from Oman after it was delayed.

The repatriation flight from Oman was due to take off on Wednesday evening but it remained grounded after technical issues.

Sir Keir said that about 4,000 Britons had already made it home from the region, with thousands still stuck in the Middle East.

More than 140,000 people in the region have registered their presence with the UK government, he said.

A further seven flights are due to leave the UAE for the UK on Thursday, Sir Keir said, adding that the government will lay on additional charter flights in the coming days.

He said British Airways is putting on daily flights from Oman, and the government will keep working with partners to "increase the speed and capacity of this airlift".

Iran has retaliated to US-Israeli air strikes by launching attacks on Israel and US-allied states in the Gulf, including Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman and Saudi Arabia.

A vote on President Donald Trump's proposed White House ballroom has been postponed after a commission overseeing changes received more than 32,000 comments, mostly in opposition, from the public.

They included accusations Trump is seeking a "gaudy, personalized palace", undertaking "personal vanity project" and "a complete razing of American history".

The East Wing of the White House was demolished in October to make way for construction of the ballroom, which would be larger than the existing White House and seat 1,000.

Trump administration officials have said demolition was more economical than renovating the East Wing and noted many presidents have made changes to the White House.

Nearly 100 people were scheduled to speak at a public forum on Thursday hosted by the National Capital Planning Commission (NPCC). The panel had been scheduled to vote during the forum but delayed the vote given the volume of feedback.

"We're going to take the time to deliberate, and we're going to have a final vote on April 2," NCPC chairman Will Scharf said at the beginning of the meeting.

The NPCC is a government commission that oversees planning for federal buildings and land in Washington DC.

The commission's executive director had recommended approving plans for the ballroom, saying the White House was responding to changing times and the "longstanding need" for permanent space to "host diplomatic and other state events".

That recommendation will be considered by the commission, along with the comments submitted by members of the public. Everyday Americans as well is historians and preservationists weighed in, including supporters.

"The reasons I've been exposed to of why President Trump wants the East Wing changed and every reason I've read was a good and firm reason," one wrote, encouraging the commission to back the project.

Among points of frustration expressed by others are the cost and the lack of public input before the East Wing was demolished.

"This is the People's House we expect due diligence in keeping with size, scale, purpose for this historical building. Stop the outrageous tackiness," one person wrote.

"I am outraged that this monstrous ballroom was designed and the construction of the original without any approval," another said. "This is the people's house and should have been authorized by the people."

The ballroom is projected to cost $400m (£298m), which is twice the original estimate. Trump has said private donors will be paying for its construction.

Though the White House and its adjoining parks are administered by the National Park Service (NPS), the president generally has broad powers to make renovations, a point of contention for some commenters.

"As someone who works in real estate, alongside of investors and developers, the fact that Trump doesn't have to follow the rules and regulations of obtaining proper permits and permissions like the rest of us do, is absurd and unethical," one wrote.

White House officials previously told members of the NPCC that the East Wing had "chronic water intrusion, accelerated deterioration and mould contamination".

"Because of this and other factors, the cost analysis proved that demolition and reconstruction provided the lowest total cost ownership and most effective long-term strategy," Josh Fisher, director of the White House Office of Administration, said.

The White House ballroom project is also expected to add a second story to the West Wing, which houses offices for staff as well as the president.

Ballroom architect Shalom Baranes said the building would span 22,000 sq ft and include two entry lobbies, a commercial kitchen, an office for the first lady and a movie theatre.

A nonprofit organisation tasked by the US Congress with helping preserve historic sites - the National Trust for Historic Preservation - sued the White House in December to stop construction of the ballroom.

The trust argued that the White House failed to seek necessary reviews and permissions before demolishing the East Wing and should have filed plans with the commission before starting construction.

A judge ruled last week that the preservation group raised the wrong legal claims against the president, and said that if the group brought a new challenge he would "expeditiously" reconsider. This, for now, allowed Trump to continue the construction.

Britney Spears has been arrested in California, US court documents show.

The singer was arrested by the California Highway Patrol at around 21:30 PT (05:30 GMT) on Wednesday.

She was released in the early hours of Thursday morning and is scheduled to appear in Ventura County Superior Court on 4 May.

The court documents do not confirm the reason for the singer's arrest.

The pop star appeared to have deleted her Instagram account on Thursday as news of her arrest broke.

Spears is one of the most successful pop stars in music history, with hits such as Toxic, Everytime, Gimme More, Womanizer, Stronger and Baby One More Time.

The singer said in January 2024 that she would "never return to the music industry". Her last song was a duet released with Elton John in 2022.

However, in a since deleted social media post from earlier this year, Spears indicated that, although she would not perform in the US again, she was hoping to play live in the UK and Australia in the near future.

For 13 years until 2021, Spears was in a conservatorship – a legal guardianship that saw her finances and personal life controlled by her father.

The singer published her memoir in 2023 titled The Woman in Me, which saw her reflect on her career and detail her struggles living under the conservatorship.

Her ex-husband Kevin Federline released his own memoir, You Thought You Knew, at the end of 2025.