Finance

Vatican City – It felt like the square could talk in one voice: “Leone! Leone! Leone!”

Thousands of people in St Peter’s Square chanted in chorus the name adopted by Robert Prevost as he ascended to the papacy on Thursday: Leo XIV.

Just an hour and a half earlier, white smoke had billowed from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, announcing that a conclave of cardinals had elected a new leader for the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics.

Now, it was time to meet Pope Leo himself. A solemn silence fell across the square. The faithful waited to hear the pope’s first message, which would set the tone for his papacy.

“Peace be upon you,” said Leo XIV, appearing on the central balcony of St Peter’s Basilica.

He proceeded to repeat a blessing uttered by his late predecessor, Pope Francis, just weeks earlier: “God loves us, God loves everyone, and evil will not prevail. We are in the hands of God.”

It was a closely watched moment, with red-hatted cardinals poking out of nearby windows to catch their first glimpse at the newly minted pontiff.

Pope Leo XIV was elected on the second day of the conclave, and his opening remarks as leader signalled continuity with Francis, who died on April 21 at age 88. But experts say he is likely to strike a middle path, between furthering Francis’s inclusive agenda and embracing Vatican tradition.

“Peace” was one of the most used words in his brief speech — a choice meant to echo the words that Jesus pronounced after Easter, as Vatican spokesperson Matteo Bruni explained during a news briefing.

Leo XIV called on Catholics to seek “a disarmed peace and a disarming peace” through “dialogue” and “building bridges”, in a brief speech heavy with themes of unity.

“Bravo! That is what we need!” one audience member in the square shouted as the new pope spoke.

Another, 29-year-old Kasper Mihalak from Denmark, was squeezed in the middle of the crowd hoping to catch a glimpse of the first North American pope.

“I am really excited. Cardinal Prevost, now Leo XIV — it’s gonna be amazing! He said a lot about peace during his speech. I think the world now really needs it,” Mihalak said.

Rosaria Venuto could hardly hold back her tears. Early in the morning, she picked up her two children and drove four hours from Ascoli Satriano, a small town in the southern Italian province of Apulia, to be in St Peter’s Square.

“I am deeply moved to have the chance to be here and live through this joy and be a small part of this historical event,” she said.

His own man

Born in Chicago, a midwestern city in the United States, Leo XIV spent more than two decades in Peru, where he acquired dual citizenship.

There, he worked in some of Peru’s poorest areas, and he eventually became the bishop of Chiclayo, in the country’s agricultural north. Then, in 2023, Pope Francis appointed him to lead a powerful office that manages bishops across the world.

Phil Pullella, a Vatican expert who has covered the papacy for more than four decades, said that background offers a degree of continuity with Francis, who hailed from Argentina and advocated against poverty.

“He knows about poverty in Latin America,” Pullella said of Leo XIV. “So, he’s not the same thing as if they had elected some cardinal of New York, for example.”

That continuity was likely appreciated by conservative camps at the Vatican, as well as liberal-leaning ones, Pullella added.

“He comes from the wealthy world, but he witnessed firsthand the problems of the Global South in a poor country,” he said.

Still, Pullella noted that the way Leo XIV dressed showed that “he is going to be his own man”.

Instead of the simple white cassock that Pope Francis wore in 2013 when he was elected, Leo XIII added a traditional red cape over his vest, symbolising the spiritual and temporal powers of his office.

“In a sense, he is going back a little bit to that kind of tradition,” Pullella said. “He would not have been elected had he not had the votes of the conservative bloc.”

A unifying figure

Leo XIV’s election came as a surprise to many. Many observers were betting on a new pope by nightfall, but few expected only three rounds of voting.

The crowd was stunned when white smoke started to pour out of the tiny chimney by early evening, at around 6:09pm local time (16:00 GMT).

That was the signal that — of the 133 cardinals under the age of 80 who were eligible to vote — a candidate had received the two-thirds majority needed to become pope.

This year’s conclave had the distinction of being the most international in the Vatican’s history: The participating cardinals hailed from more than 70 countries, representing divergent views for the Catholic Church’s future.

The diversity was part of the legacy of Pope Francis, who appointed cardinals from underrepresented countries like Laos and Haiti to broaden the church’s global appeal.

Francis spent 12 years as head of the Catholic Church, shaking up the establishment by adopting a distinct style and tone, focused on austerity and advocacy for marginalised populations.

The late pope’s efforts caused excitement among reformers but also dismay among conservatives, who accused him of diluting the Church’s teachings. Experts say that led to a deep polarisation within the church, with some members criticising Francis for decentralising the church’s authority.

Those experts point out that Leo XIV’s experience in the Roman Curia — the church’s government — was likely a selling point among conservative conclave voters looking for stability in the years ahead.

What’s in a name?

While Pope Leo XIV’s first moves are yet to be revealed, his choice of name is noteworthy.

Bruni, the Vatican spokesperson, noted that “Leo” is a direct reference to Pope Leo XIII, who adopted a new social doctrine in the late 19th century.

In 1891, Pope Leo XIII wrote an encyclical — or papal letter — known as the Rerum Novarum. It called on Catholics to address the “wretchedness” facing the working class, amid the upheavals of industrialisation and political changes like the unification of Italy.

That encyclical marked a radical new approach to workers, and it triggered the creation of Catholic newspapers, social cooperatives and banks — a social movement that is still alive today.

Bruni said the current Pope Leo hoped to draw a parallel to that time, with its technological revolutions.

“It is not a casual reference to the men and women of their work at a time of artificial intelligence,” Bruni explained.

Robert Orsi, a professor of religious studies at Northwestern University, said the name choice could also signify other historical parallels.

Leo XIII “strongly put down a movement called Americanism,” said Orsi.

“This movement was a kind of nationalist impulse within Catholicism, with national churches claiming to have their own identities, their own particular ways of doing things,” he explained. “And I think by choosing the name Leo XIV, this pope was, without a doubt, signalling a return to a global Catholicism.”

Pullella also believes it is noteworthy that, while Leo XIV mentioned his parishioners in Peru, he avoided highlighting his ties with the US.

“I think it’s very significant that he did not give a shout-out to the United States. He didn’t say, ‘I’m from America.’ He didn’t speak in English,” Pullella said.

That sent a message that “basically he’s not owned by the United States”, Pullella added. Leo XIV has previously been critical of the administration of US President Donald Trump over issues like nationalism and migration, just as the late Pope Francis was.

Still, Orsi predicted the Vatican under the new Pope Leo would be “subtle and wise” in how he deals with Trump in the years to come.

The white smoke has billowed, and the Catholic church has a new pope – and he’s American.

Cardinals at the Vatican elected the Chicago-born Robert Prevost on Thursday to lead the church, succeeding Pope Francis, who died last month.

Prevost took the name Leo XIV as he became the first pontiff from the United States.

“Peace be with you,” were his first words as pope.

Here is a look at the new pope and his journey from the US Midwest to the top of the church of 1.4 billion people.

What is Pope Leo’s background?

Born in Chicago in 1955 to parents of French, Italian and Spanish descent, Leo’s father was a school principal and his mother had degrees in library science and education and was deeply involved in the St Mary of the Assumption that the family attended.

Last week, the Chicago Sun-Times cited Leo’s friends and fellow church goers as saying that he was dedicated to his faith and path to priesthood from a young age.

Leo graduated with a degree in mathematics from the University of Villanova in Pennsylvania in 1977. He also studied religion at the Catholic Theological Union of Chicago.

In 1982, he received a doctorate in church law from the Pontifical University of St Thomas Aquinas in Rome before being sent to serve in a Catholic mission in Peru.

In the subsequent decades, he rose through the ranks of the church as he bounced between Chicago and Peru.

Pope Francis made him the Bishop of Chiclayo, Peru, in 2015 before giving him greater responsibilities within the church. That same year, Prevost also became a Peruvian citizen.

In 2023, he became prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, a key Catholic administrative body, based in Rome.

What is an Augustinian?

In his first public remarks as pope, Leo introduced himself as an Augustinian – an order within the Catholic Church that follows the teachings of St Augustine of Hippo, which emphasise love, harmony, humility and dedication to the spiritual community of the church.

The term also describes individuals who belong to religious orders, and Pope Leo is just one of 34 popes out of 266 to have done so.

Such orders are a community of Catholics, which can include priests, nuns, monks and or lay people, dedicated to a particular type of mission and spirituality.

Pope Francis was the first pope from the Jesuit religious order ever, and the first in more than a century and a half to come from any religious order.

What did the pope say in his first speech?

Leo suggested that he would follow in Francis’s footsteps. The late pope was largely seen as a transformational figure who took the church in a progressive direction and focused on promoting the rights of the poor and marginalised.

“Let us keep in our ears the weak but always brave voice of Pope Francis, who blessed Rome – the pope who blessed Rome and the world that day on the morning of Easter,” Leo said.

In his final Easter message, days before he died, Francis called for peace and disarmament.

Why Leo?

When it comes to popes, names matter. New pontiffs often choose new names as tribute to a saint or predecessor.

For example, Pope Francis took the name of St Francis of Assisi, who renounced material goods and dedicated his life to the poor.

The last Leo to lead the church, Pope Leo XIII, championed the rights of workers.

“Up until that time, the church’s hierarchy tended to be identified with the upper class, and so Leo XIII put a redirection on the church, and certainly many of the popes since that time have built on that,” Father James Bretzke, professor of theology at John Carroll University, told Al Jazeera.

What are his politics?

Church leaders are not politicians, but religion is intertwined with public affairs. Leo has given hints of his politics over the years, particularly in advocating for the rights of migrants.

In 2015, Leo shared an article by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, criticising then-candidate Donald Trump’s anti-immigration proposals. The column was titled: Why Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is so problematic.

In February, he again appeared to criticise the Trump administration’s immigration policies, taking aim at Vice President JD Vance’s argument that people should love others close to them more than strangers.

Leo shared an article proclaiming: “JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others.”

Where does he stand on female priests?

The debate over allowing women to be priests has been raging within the Catholic Church, but Leo does not seem to be in favour of the change.

“Something that needs to be said also is that ordaining women – and there’s been some women that have said this, interestingly enough – ‘clericalising women’ doesn’t necessarily solve a problem, it might make a new problem,” he told reporters in 2023.

What has he said about sex abuse scandals?

Leo’s Augustinian Order has faced criticism over transparency in dealing with sex abuse cases that have rocked the church.

In 2023, Leo called for focusing on the victims when it comes to this issue.

“There are places where good work has already been done for years, and the rules are being put into practice. At the same time, I believe that there is still much to learn,” he told Vatican News in 2023.

“I am talking about the urgency and responsibility of accompanying victims.”

How does he compare to other popes, age-wise?

At 69, Leo is younger than his past two predecessors when they became pontiffs. Francis was 76. Benedict XVI was 78. But he is older than John Paul II, who was 58 when he became pope – one of the youngest pontiffs in modern history.

What does he do in his spare time?

He likes tennis, spending time with friends and “meeting a broad range of different people”.

“I consider myself quite the amateur tennis player. Since leaving Peru, I have had few occasions to practise, so I am looking forward to getting back on the court,” he told the Augustinian Order website in 2023.

International concern is mounting over the India-Pakistan conflict, as both are armed with substantial nuclear arsenals.

Atomic bombs have only been used twice – 80 years ago on Japan.

What nuclear risks do the current hostilities pose?

Presenter:

James Bays

Guests:

Dan Smith – Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a think tank focusing on global security

Susi Snyder – Programme co-ordinator at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

Elizabeth Threlkeld – Senior fellow and director of the South Asia Program at the Stimson Center

The announcement that US Cardinal Robert Prevost has been named Pope Leo XIV has caused excitement tinged with hope around the world, with leaders from numerous countries offering their congratulations.

The elevation of Prevost, the first person from the United States to ascend to the highest position in the Catholic Church, has also sparked discussion about what his tenure could mean for the church’s leadership on a host of issues, among them immigration, war, and poverty and inequality.

The new pope has previously posted social media criticisms of US Vice President JD Vance.

JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others https://t.co/hDKPKuMXmu via @NCRonline

— Robert Prevost (@drprevost) February 3, 2025

The late Pope Francis, in his final hours, had met Vance, and is said to have chastised him on the administration’s efforts against migrants and the poor.

Pope Francis was also a staunch advocate for Palestinians and kept in regular contact with Catholics in Gaza amid Israel’s assault. Pope Leo XIV has not said much publicly about Gaza, making it unclear if he will emulate his predecessor.

Here are a few of the reactions that world leaders have offered so far:

Argentina

President Javier Milei: “The forces of Heaven have clearly given their verdict. No more words, Mr. Judge. End.”

Brazil

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva: “I would like to greet the American Cardinal Robert Prevost, chosen today to lead the destiny of the Catholic Church, with the name of Leo XIV. I hope he continues the legacy of Pope Francis, whose main virtues were the incessant search for peace and social justice, the defense of the environment, dialogue with all peoples and all religions, and respect for the diversity of human beings. We do not need wars, hatred and intolerance. We need more solidarity and more humanism. We need love for our neighbor, which is the basis of Christ’s teachings. May Pope Leo XIV bless us and inspire us in our ongoing quest to build a better and more just world.”

Colombia

President Gustavo Petro: “The new Pope, Leo XIV, is more than just an American. His immediate ancestors are Latin: Spanish and French, and he lived for forty years in our Latin America, in Peru. I hope he becomes a great leader for migrant peoples around the world, and I hope he encourages our Latin American migrant brothers and sisters, humiliated today in the U.S. It’s time for them to organize. May it help us build the great force of humanity that defends life and defeats the greed that has caused the climate crisis and the extinction of all living things. Chicago is the great working-class and progressive city of the United States. I feel hopeful.”

France

President Emmanuel Macron: “A historic moment for the Catholic Church and its millions of faithful. To Pope Leo XIV, and to all Catholics in France and around the world, I extend a message of fraternity. On this May 8th, may this new pontificate be one of peace and hope.”

Hungary

Prime Minister Viktor Orban: “We have a pope! There is hope!”

Italy

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni: “I extend my most sincere wishes to Pope Leo XIV for the beginning of his pontificate. In a time marked by conflict and unrest, his words from the Loggia delle Benedizioni are a powerful call for peace, brotherhood and responsibility. A spiritual legacy that follows the path traced by Pope Francis, and that Italy looks at with respect and hope.”

Lebanon

President Joseph Aoun: “We pray to God to grant him health, well-being, and wisdom to lead the Church during this important phase of its history.”

Mexico

President Claudia Sheinbaum: “We congratulate His Holiness Leo XIV, elected by the College of Cardinals as Head of Vatican City State and spiritual leader of the Catholic Church. I reaffirm our humanist convergence for world peace and prosperity.”

Peru

President Dina Boluarte: “President Dina Boluarte, on behalf of the Government and people of Peru, fraternally greets His Holiness Leo XIV, the new Pope of the Catholic Church. His election fills our nation, which was his home, his mission and his faith, with pride and hope. May his pontificate be a guide of peace, justice and love for the world.”

Russia

President Vladimir Putin: “Please accept my heartfelt congratulations on your election as Pope. I am confident that the constructive dialogue and cooperation established between Russia and the Vatican will continue to develop on the basis of the Christian values that unite us. I wish you, Your Holiness, success in fulfilling the high mission entrusted to you, as well as good health and well-being.”

South Africa

President Cyril Ramaphosa: “The election of Pope Leo XIV is a profound moment for the Catholic Church as well as the global community who followed this solemn event with hopeful anticipation. May the ceremonial white smoke that signalled the consensus of the Conclave prevail over the dark plumes of military bombardments affecting various regions of the world today. Pope Leo XIV’s early emphasis on peace is a call that resonates with most of humanity and is one that honours the legacy of the late Pope Francis. South Africa wishes Pope Leo XIV a blessed and transformative papacy that will strengthen faith, unity and social solidarity in the world.”

Spain

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez: “Congratulations to the whole Catholic Church on the election of the new Pope Leo XIV. May his pontificate contribute to strengthening dialogue and the defense of human rights in a world in need of hope and unity.”

Ukraine

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy: “In this decisive moment for our country, we hope for further moral and spiritual support from the Vatican for Ukraine’s efforts aimed at restoring justice and achieving a lasting peace.”

United Kingdom

Prime Minister Keir Starmer: “The election of Pope Leo XIV is a deeply profound moment of joy for Catholics in the United Kingdom and around globally, and begins a new chapter for the leadership of the church and in the world. Pope Leo is the first American Pope. This is a momentous moment. As Pope Francis’ papacy showed, the Holy See has a special role to play in bringing people and nations together to address the major issues of our time; especially on climate change, alleviating poverty and promoting peace and justice across the world.”

United Nations

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres: “I extend my heartfelt congratulations to His Holiness Pope Leo XIV and Catholics around the world. The election of a new Pope is a moment of profound spiritual significance for millions of faithful around the world, and it comes at a time of great global challenges. Our world is in need of the strongest voices for peace, social justice, human dignity and compassion. I look forward to building on the long legacy of cooperation between the United Nations and the Holy See – nurtured most recently by Pope Francis – to advance solidarity, foster reconciliation, and build a just and sustainable world for all. It is rooted in the first words of Pope Leo. Despite the rich diversity of backgrounds and beliefs, people everywhere share a common goal: May peace be with all the world.”

United States

President Donald Trump: “Congratulations to Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, who was just named Pope. It is such an honor to realize that he is the first American Pope. What excitement, and what a Great Honor for our Country. I look forward to meeting Pope Leo XIV. It will be a very meaningful moment!”

Vice President JD Vance: “Congratulations to Leo XIV, the first American Pope, on his election! I’m sure millions of American Catholics and other Christians will pray for his successful work leading the Church. May God bless him!”

Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago, US, Prevost’s place of birth: “Everything dope, including the Pope, comes from Chicago! Congratulations to the first American Pope Leo XIV! We hope to welcome you back home soon.”

Muridke, Pakistan – The roof of the building sagged dangerously, sunlight peeked through a hole, while the ground below was littered with debris, and the doors of the rooms had been blown in by the blast.

This was India’s message to Pakistan, the outcome of one of a series of missile strikes launched in the early hours of May 7 as retribution for the deadly attack on tourists in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, on April 22, in which 26 people were killed. India blamed Pakistan for that attack, but Islamabad has denied any involvement.

The Indian strike on Muridke was a part of Operation Sindoor, the most expansive set of aerial attacks on Pakistan outside the four wars that the nuclear-armed neighbours have fought. And of all the sites targeted by India, it was particularly significant.

Muridke has long been believed to be home to the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) armed group, which India and other countries have blamed for carrying out deadly attacks on Indian soil, including the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai.

But while Indian security officials and the country’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri insisted on Wednesday that they struck “terrorist infrastructure” and that Indian missiles only hit armed groups, Pakistan has said that 31 civilians, including at least two children, were killed.

In Muridke, hours after the missile strike, the low-hanging roof belonged to the administrative block of a large compound called the Government Health and Educational Complex. The compound houses a hospital, two schools, a hostel, and a large seminary, with more than 3,000 students studying at various institutions, including the seminary. The compound also included 80 residences, homes to approximately 300 people, most of whom are government employees.

On Wednesday, the administrative block was struck, as was a mosque separated by a large veranda. Three men, all between the ages of 20 and 30 and part of the clerical staff, died in the attack, and one person was injured.

A rescue official at the site told Al Jazeera he had arrived within half an hour of the attack. “I was the one who discovered the first body,” he said, pointing to a room inside the administration block.

‘We had already been preparing for this’

A small city of just more than 250,000 people, Muridke is four hours away from Islamabad, and located roughly 30km (18 miles) from Lahore, the provincial capital of Punjab, which borders India.

Tauseef Hasan, a government official, told Al Jazeera that Muridke was the first location struck by Indian missiles that night.

“It was just a few minutes after midnight when I heard two massive booms, within two minutes. We had already been preparing for this, and I knew exactly what had happened,” Hasan said in a matter-of-fact tone.

Across the veranda stood the mosque, Jamia Ummul Qurah, with a large prayer hall where part of the roof had collapsed. Two gaping holes in the ceiling marked the spots where missiles had struck.

Hasan and his colleague Usman Jalees said that after the Pahalgam attack two weeks earlier, Pakistani authorities had assessed the risk of an attack on Muridke, given the rhetoric against the town and compound, which India has long argued was the headquarters of the LeT.

“We had been informed that Muridke could be a target, and that is why we had instructed the staff and residents of the compound to vacate and leave the place,” Jalees told Al Jazeera, adding that those killed were part of the skeleton staff who had remained behind.

On one side of the veranda, a large table displayed pieces of the missile that had struck the buildings. The smell of explosives and residual heat still clung to the metal fragments.

While both Hasan and Jalees insisted that the seminary and educational institutions were fully under state control, the compound’s origins tell a more complex story.

Education or militancy?

The compound was founded in 1988 by Hafiz Saeed, the founder of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), a charity organisation widely considered to be a front for the LeT. The compound’s seminary, Jamia Dawa Islami, was also named after the group.

India accuses Saeed and the LeT of orchestrating several attacks on its territory, most notably the 2008 Mumbai attacks that left more than 160 people dead over several days.

Abid Hussain, a 51-year-old religious scholar who lives on the compound, vehemently denied Indian claims that the area served as a “training facility” or “headquarters of any terrorist outfit.”

“This compound has always been an educational centre for children, both boys and girls. I have been teaching here myself, having lived here for the past three decades,” the short, stocky man with a forked beard told Al Jazeera.

The religious teacher went on to challenge accusations that the area was used for training fighters.

“If we have grounds and facilities to give opportunities to our students to learn swimming, or horse-riding, or physical training, how does this imply this is training the terrorists?” he asked.

The Pakistani government took over the facility from the JuD in 2019, at a time when the country was under international pressure to crack down on Saeed and the LeT or be placed on a “grey list” of countries deemed as not doing enough to stop financing for banned armed groups.

‘Saeed was once a regular’

Behind the mosque is a street where two houses had been completely destroyed. Solar panels and broken bricks were strewn everywhere.

Recalling the night of the attack, a resident, Ali Zafar, pointed to his residence behind one of the demolished buildings. He said the blast could be heard at least seven kilometres (four miles) away, near the house of a relative where he had moved with his family.

“A few days ago, the authorities told us to vacate the place, so we had moved outside the complex. It was certain that India would attack this area, as their media kept highlighting Muridke,” said Zafar, bearded and wearing glasses.

Hasan, the government official, said that, while the seminary and schools had closed for the academic year, the entire facility was under strict government supervision.

“Once the government took over the administration of the institute in 2019, we have ensured that the curriculum and teaching is completely supervised,” he said.

Hussain, the religious teacher, added that Saeed had stopped coming to the compound since the government took control.

“He used to be a regular back in the late ’90s and early 2000s,” he said.

Saeed, now in his late 70s, was arrested in 2019 and is currently serving a 31-year sentence handed down by a Pakistani court in 2022 in two “terror financing” cases. He was already serving a separate 15-year sentence, imposed in 2020, on similar charges.

The United States has announced a ‘breakthrough deal’ with the United Kingdom that would create an aluminium and steel trading zone and secure the pharmaceutical supply chain.

The deal affirms that “reciprocity and fairness is a vital principle of international trade” and increases access for US agricultural products, US President Donald Trump said on Thursday, though he added that the final details were still being written up.

“The final details are being written up,” Trump told reporters. “In the coming weeks, we’ll have it all very conclusive.”

The deal, the first one struck by the US since Trump imposed his far-reaching tariffs, is also said to strip back paperwork for British companies looking to export to the US.

The president said that the agreement would lead to more beef and ethanol exports to the UK, which would also streamline the processing of US goods through customs.

The White House said that the deal will bring in $6bn in external revenue from its 10-percent tariffs, which will stay in place, but that it would also bring in $5bn in new export opportunities. The UK agreed to lower its tariffs to 1.8 percent from 5.1 percent and provide greater access to US goods.

The US already runs a trade surplus with the UK, making it a bit easier to find common ground, as Trump has staked his tariffs on specifically eliminating the annual trade deficits with multiple nations that he says have taken advantage of the US.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer joined the president in the announcement over the phone. Starmer said the deal would boost trade and create jobs.

Thursday’s announced agreement is the first agreement since the Trump administration started a global trade war with universal levies of 10 percent. The US has also imposed 25-percent tariffs on cars, steel and aluminium, 25-percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and 145-percent tariffs on China. US and Chinese officials are due to hold talks in Switzerland on Saturday.

British implications

Starmer has struck up a warm relationship with Trump since his centre-left Labour Party was elected in July.

Starmer’s government has been seeking to build new trading relationships post-Brexit with the US, China and the EU without moving so far towards one bloc that it angers the others.

Economists and one chief executive of an FTSE 100 company — the highest capitalised blue chip companies on the London stock exchange—said the immediate economic impact of a tariff deal was likely to be limited but that trade agreements in general would help long-term growth. The UK struck a free trade agreement with India this week.

The US and the UK have been aiming to strike a bilateral trade agreement since the British people voted in 2016 to leave the EU, allowing the country to negotiate independently of the rest of the continent. Then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson touted a future deal with the US as an incentive for Brexit.

The US ran a $11.9bn trade surplus in goods with the UK last year, according to the Census Bureau. The $68bn in goods that the US imported from the UK accounted for just 2 percent of all goods imported into the country.

Markets respond

The US has been under pressure from investors to strike deals to de-escalate its tariff war after Trump’s often chaotic policymaking upended global trade with friends and foes alike, threatening to stoke inflation and start a recession.

Top US officials have engaged in a flurry of meetings with trading partners since the president on April 2 imposed a 10-percent tariff on most countries, along with higher rates for many trading partners that were then suspended for 90 days.

On Wall Street, US markets were responding to the news amid hopes that this could be enough to ward off a recession.

As of 11:30am ET in the US (15:30 GMT), the S&P 500 was up 0.97 percent and on track for an 11th gain in the last 13 days. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was 1.02 percent higher and the tech-heavy Nasdaq composite was 1.17 percent higher than market open.

Stocks have been swinging for weeks with hopes that Trump could reach deals with other countries that would lower his tariffs, which many investors believe would cause a recession if left unchecked.

United States President Donald Trump is expected to announce the framework of a trade deal between the US and the United Kingdom on Thursday, according to people familiar with the plan.

On Wednesday, Trump said he was preparing to announce “a major trade deal with representatives of a big and highly respected country”. In a post on Truth Social, he promised it would be the “first of many”.

Investors have been waiting for Trump to ease his global trade war amid fears that prolonged uncertainty over tariffs could inflict serious damage to the world’s biggest economies.

An agreement with the UK would mark Trump’s first trade deal since he imposed tariffs on dozens of countries on April 2, a move he called “liberation day”. Separately, Trump has introduced bespoke tariffs on certain US imports, including cars and steel.

Trump has long accused other countries of exploiting the US on trade, casting his tariffs as necessary to bring jobs back to the US. He also wants to use tariffs to finance future tax cuts.

What could be in a US-UK trade agreement?

At the moment, most imports from the UK to the US face a blanket 10 percent tariff. The UK, like other countries, has also been hit with 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminium exports to the US, as well as a 25 percent tariff on cars and car parts.

The broad outline of a proposed deal has been clear for some time – significant reductions in US tariffs on steel and cars, with an expectation that Trump’s 10 percent general tariff will remain in place.

The UK would then be expected to reduce its own 2 percent digital services tax on US tech firms and its 10 percent tariff on car imports, and varying duties on US agricultural goods.

However, Jonathan Haskel, a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, told the BBC: “Deals are limited and short-term and partial, just covering a few items. Trade agreements are broad-based and long-term.”

Today’s announcement, he suggested, is more likely to be a deal and may amount to little more than a carve-out – exemptions on certain trade barriers that Trump introduced last month.

On Thursday morning, however, Trump said the agreement was “a full and comprehensive one that will cement the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom for many years to come”.

While both governments will likely present any agreement announced today as a significant win, it is essentially about returning to the status quo – removing the newly imposed tariff barriers.

It remains to be seen how much any agreement will contribute to both countries’ economic output.

What and how much do the US and UK trade?

In 2023, the UK had an overall trade surplus with the US. The UK reported a surplus of 71.4 billion pounds ($95bn) in goods and services. Most of that headroom came from services, however.

On the goods side, the UK exported 15.3 percent of its goods to the US in 2023 – amounting to roughly 60 billion pounds ($80bn).

Machinery and transport equipment accounted for the largest share, at 27 billion pounds ($36bn), ahead of chemicals at 14 billion pounds ($19bn).

On the flipside, the US exported $77.2bn of goods to the UK in 2023. Ten percent of all goods imported by Great Britain came from the US in that year, second only to Germany.

Machinery and transport equipment accounted for the largest share, worth nearly 20 billion pounds ($27bn), followed by fuel – amounting to 18.7 billion pounds ($25bn).

On the services side, the US exported $76bn in services – things like advertising and banking – to the UK in 2023, and imported $170bn in British services. These are unaffected by tariffs.

Could the US deal serve as a blueprint for other US negotiations?

Trump’s top negotiating officials have engaged in a flurry of meetings with trade partners since the president’s “liberation day” tariff announcement on April 2.

Although Trump delayed implementing “reciprocal” tariffs for most countries by 90 days on April 9, he did raise them for China to 145 percent. Beijing, in turn, slapped a 125 percent tariff on US goods.

The reciprocal tariffs, which varied from 10 percent to 39 percent, were designed to hit countries with which Washington has large trade deficits, or that impose heavy tariffs on US goods.

Though Britain was not among the countries hit with these reciprocal tariffs, today’s announcement could set a precedent for other bilateral trade deals.

On Tuesday, Trump said he would review potential trade agreements over the next two weeks to decide which ones to accept. Last week, he said that “we [already] have potential trade deals” with South Korea and Japan.

Following his 90-day reprieve, steep reciprocal tariffs are due to be imposed on US trade partners in early July, leaving country representatives racing to avoid a full-blown trade spat with the world’s number one economy.

What stage of talks has the US reached with other countries?

China

According to data from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the total goods trade between the US and China stood at an estimated $582.4bn in 2024.

US exports of goods to China totalled $143.5bn while US imports from China totalled $438.9bn. The upshot is that America’s trade deficit with China was $295.4bn last year, 5.8 percent higher ($16.3bn) than in 2023.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will meet with China’s Vice Premier He Lifeng in Switzerland this weekend for talks, which may be the first step in resolving a trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

Meetings will take place in Geneva, and are expected to address reductions on broad tariffs, duties on specific products, export controls and Trump’s decision to end “de minimis” exemptions on low-value imports.

China’s commerce ministry said last week that it was “evaluating” an offer from Washington. The Geneva meeting will be the first between the two since the announcement of Trump’s trade tariffs in April.

On Tuesday, Bessent told Fox News that “we [the US and China] have a shared interest that isn’t sustainable. And 145 percent and 125 percent is the equivalent of an embargo. We don’t want to decouple. What we want is fair trade.”

Trump has accused China of manipulating its currency to make its exports cheaper. He has also slammed Beijing for adopting what he says are market-interfering practices, such as direct government support for Chinese companies, as well as tax breaks and preferential financing.

European Union

In 2023, the EU exported 502 billion euros worth of goods to the US and imported 344 billion euros of goods from America, amounting to a goods trade surplus in the EU’s favour of 157 billion euros ($177bn).

After Trump temporarily dropped his 20 percent reciprocal tariffs on the EU in April, the EU paused retaliatory duties on 21 billion euros ($24bn) of US goods until July 14, including on Harley-Davidson motorcycles, chicken and clothing.

Since then, Brussels has said it wants to increase US goods imports by 50 billion euros ($57bn) to address the “problem” in their trade relationship.

Maros Sefcovic, the EU’s top negotiator, recently told The Financial Times that the bloc is making “progress” towards striking a deal.

But Sefcovic suggested that the EU would not accept an indefinite 10 percent tariff on its exports as a fair resolution to trade talks. He added that his “ambition” was still to strike a “balanced and fair” deal with the White House.

He also said he wants his US counterparts to take into account US services which are exported to the EU.

The EU experienced a services trade deficit of 109 billion euros ($123bn) with the US in 2023 in terms of services. Brussels exported 319 billion euros ($361bn) in services to the US that year, while importing 427 billion euros ($483bn).

Taking this into account would bring the US overall trade deficit with the EU to about 50 billion euros ($57bn), he said.

The new $57bn US deficit could be closed quickly, Sefcovic added, with deals to purchase more US gas and agricultural products. Talks are currently continuing.

India

In the first three months of 2025, India exported $27.7bn of goods (mainly pharmaceutical and engineering products) to the US, while importing $10.5bn of goods (mainly aircraft and medical goods), meaning a US trade deficit of $17.2bn.

On Tuesday, Trump revealed that India had agreed to drop all tariffs on US imports “to nothing”. New Delhi has not yet issued an official statement confirming Trump’s remarks.

At a White House event alongside Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump said, “India has one of the highest tariffs in the world. We are not going to put up with that. They have agreed to drop it to … nothing. They wouldn’t have done that for anybody else but me.”

According to Bloomberg, India has reportedly proposed eliminating tariffs on select US imports – including steel, car parts and pharmaceuticals – as part of ongoing bilateral trade talks with Washington.

India currently imposes tariffs on US imports ranging from 5 percent to 30 percent, depending on the product category.

A zero-tariff offer would apply on a reciprocal basis and would be limited to a specific volume of goods.

An attack in Kashmir in mid-April has led to the biggest crisis between India and Pakistan for years. What’s going on? Start Here with Sandra Gathmann explains.

This episode features:

Nitasha Kaul | Professor of Politics & International Relations, University of Westminster

Michael Kugelman | South Asia Analyst

Neha Poonia | Journalist

Cardinals are in the Sistine Chapel for the second day of the conclave to elect a new pope, following two votes so far that have ended with black smoke – a signal that no new pope has been elected.

Thursday’s voting has been highly anticipated, as the previous two popes were both announced on the second day of the conclave.

Here is what we know about what the cardinals do all day:

How many cardinals have gathered in the Vatican?

Out of 252 cardinals, only those less than the age of 80 are eligible to participate in the papal conclave.

Currently, 135 cardinals meet this criterion. However, two have chosen not to travel to Rome, citing health issues, and bringing the number of confirmed voting participants to 133.

A two-thirds majority is needed to elect a new pope; that’s 89 votes out of the 133 eligible cardinals. If no candidate reaches that threshold, another vote is held. After each round, ballots are burned.

If black smoke appears from the chimney on top of the Sistine Chapel, it means no pope has been chosen. White smoke signals the Catholic Church has a new pontiff.

“In the past, fresh straw was used to produce white smoke, and water was added to produce black smoke,” Father Francis Lucas, a Catholic priest and executive director of the Catholic Media Network, told Al Jazeera.

“However, this sometimes resulted in grey smoke, which led to confusion. Now, chemicals are added to ensure the smoke is distinctly black or white,” he added.

What’s the voting process in the papal conclave?

Voting after the first day occurs a maximum of four times per day: Twice in the morning and twice in the afternoon

Each cardinal receives a ballot marked “Eligo in Summum Pontificem” (“I elect as Supreme Pontiff”) and writes in their chosen candidate. They are not permitted to vote for themselves.

They then fold the ballot, hold it up for visibility and carry it to the altar, where a chalice covered by a plate awaits. One by one, the cardinals approach the altar before Michelangelo’s Last Judgement, swear an oath and place their votes in the chalice.

According to Vatican News, each cardinal says aloud, in Italian:

• “Chiamo a testimone Cristo Signore, il quale mi giudicherà, che il mio voto è dato a colui che, secondo Dio, ritengo debba essere eletto.”
• “I call as my witness Christ the Lord, who will be my judge, that my vote is given to the one whom I believe should be elected according to God.”

Each cardinal places his ballot on a plate, uses it to drop the vote into the chalice, bows towards the altar and then returns to his seat.

Cardinals who are present but unable to walk to the altar due to illness give their folded ballot to one of the scrutineers – a number of cardinals chosen to oversee the voting. The scrutineer brings it to the altar and deposits it in the same manner, without reciting the oath again.

No one except the cardinals is permitted inside the chapel during the conclave. Outside the chapel, there are others involved in the process, such as personnel handling logistics and security, cleaners, medical support staff and other clerics in supporting roles. About 100 additional people have taken the oath of secrecy over and above the voting cardinals.

What do the cardinals do when they’re not voting?

Conclaves are inherently secretive, but experts say some information is available about what happens when the cardinals are not voting.

“In the course of the days of the conclave, they will move by charter bus around St Peter’s to the Sistine Chapel, enter and have the morning vote,” Steven P Millies, professor of public theology at the Catholic Theological Union, a Catholic graduate school of theology in Chicago, Illinois, in the United States, told Al Jazeera.

“They will return to the Domus Sanctae Marthae (Latin for Saint Martha’s House, the Vatican guesthouse) and have their midday meal, take their midday nap, and then return for the evening vote (to the Sistine Chapel). And then back again (to the Domus Sanctae Marthae) for a nighttime meal,” he added.

“The Church emphasises that the conclave is a spiritual and sacred process, not a political one,” Father Francis Lucas said.

Some experts argue that most of the social activities and reflections on the previous vote might take place during their time in Saint Martha’s House.

“One imagines that it is in the cafeteria at the Domus Sanctae Marthae, where people do eat cafeteria style, they put food on their own trays and that sort of thing,” Millies said.

“There is a lot of time over meals and informal conversations for the cardinals to decipher the meaning of what just happened in the last vote and to try to figure out where their support might go best. This is where coalitions and alliances are made,” he added.

“That doesn’t exclude the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but there certainly is a certain amount of negotiation, alliance-making, shifting alliances, those kinds of things that will happen in those spaces too,” he explained.

What are the food and lodgings like?

According to reports, food is not great during the Conclave.

“The food is pretty ordinary, pasta, soup and fruit, which is how Francis wanted it,” a Vatican insider who has eaten there told the UK’s Times newspaper.

While food during the papal conclave has traditionally been a plain affair, Francis, known for his focus on simplicity and humility, has been partly blamed for the further decline in quality, according to a report by The New York Times. Some cardinals have complained about bland vegetables and uninspired pasta dishes.

“You don’t eat very well,” Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi of Italy, a supporter of Pope Francis, told The New York Times.

After his election, Pope Francis broke with more than a century of Vatican tradition by declining to move into the papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace. Instead, he chose to live in a simple suite at Santa Marta (Saint Martha’s), where the voting cardinals are currently lodging.

“This room where we are now was a guest room,” Pope Francis said in an interview.

“I chose to live here, in Room 201… The papal apartment in the Apostolic Palace is not luxurious. It is old, tastefully decorated and large, but not luxurious. But in the end, it is like an inverted funnel. It is big and spacious, but the entrance is really tight. People can come only in dribs and drabs, and I cannot live without people. I need to live my life with others,” he added.

When Mali’s Colonel Assimi Goita first seized power in a coup in 2020, the West African nation erupted in joy. His promises to hold elections and bring stability to parts of the country troubled by armed groups were tantalising for a nation under siege.

Nearly five years later, however, Goita has repeatedly reneged on those promises. The security situation has only marginally improved, with violence and killings – sometimes by government forces – reported regularly in areas outside the capital, Bamako, while elections have been postponed.

Somehow, popular support for Goita has largely held – until now.

Public anger at the military government was evident on May 3 when hundreds of people gathered in Bamako with defiant fists raised in protest. The demonstrations – a visible first against the military – came after government officials “proposed” at a national conference last week that Goita lead the country until 2030 and that political parties be dissolved.

On Wednesday, the government suspended political parties “until further notice for reasons of public order”, before mass protests slated for Friday.

The rare revolts signal a reawakening by Malians, whose popular protests against previous rulers built the vacuum that allowed the military to seize power. Many had promised to return to the streets if the regime held on to power indefinitely.

“For many people, even those who supported the government at first, this is a step too far,” Ousmane Diallo, Sahel researcher at Amnesty International, told Al Jazeera. “They see it as Goita trying to consolidate and hold on to power, and they have resolved to stand against it.”

The protests almost turned into an all-out brawl at the central Cultural Palace in downtown Bamako, as pro-transition youth armed with green-, gold-, and red-coloured Malian flags launched counter-rallies. Violence might not be far off, Diallo said, as more Malians are likely to react to the military government’s decrees. In July 2020, protests against the previous government were met with violent crackdowns by security forces, and at least 14 people were killed.

“There’s a real backlash now, and things could get more heated, especially if factions of the military decide to ally with the streets,” Diallo said, referring to possible mutinies within the army.

Broken promises

Goita’s coup in August 2020 came during a wave of mass antigovernment protests in Bamako because of advancing swarms of armed groups from the north. The groups – which are still active and aim to build caliphates – rendered huge swaths of the country ungovernable, sacking villages, killing civilians and displacing hundreds. ISIL affiliate in the Greater Sahara (ISGS) and al-Qaeda-linked Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) are two of the most active ones.

At the time, Malians blamed the civilian government for failing to deal with the threat. This despite assistance from a United Nations peacekeeping mission and former colonial power France, both of which had deployed more than 15,000 soldiers in northern Mali. So when young soldiers appeared on state television and declared a coup, most were in support.

Goita, 36 at the time, struck a visionary image with his promises of elections and peace. He installed a civilian-led transition government, while he stayed on as vice president. Under pressure from the regional body, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), to hold elections, Goita presented a transition charter spelling out that the military vice president could in no case be president, and that elections would be held in 18 months.

Signs that he would go back on his word came early, however. Goita staged another coup in May 2021, kicking out the civilian president and installing himself as leader. Then, in 2022, when the transition was meant to expire, the military rulers postponed elections and instead presented a five-year transition plan. ECOWAS, which had initially suspended the country, refused the deal. Opposition political parties protested in statements, but the military government has not changed track.

Meanwhile, several opposition politicians have been arrested, tried, and sentenced on charges such as taking part in an “unauthorised demonstration” or “opposition to legitimate authority” since Goita took power. Last July, the government suspended political parties and banned media coverage of “all political activities” for three months.

Analysts say even if Goita were to step down now and hold elections as initially promised, extensive damage to the country’s democratic institutions has already set in during his five-year term.

Mali, along with neighbouring militart-led Burkina Faso and Niger, defied ECOWAS sanctions for failing to hold elections, and have since left the regional group. Together, they’ve formed the Alliance of Sahel States (AES). The military leaders in Burkina Faso and Niger have already extended their rule by five years.

“The damage is not irreversible, but it’s going to be very difficult to get back on track [for elections] because things have gone very far from what was initially promised,” Diallo said.

Security gains with Wagner help

One reason why Goita has enjoyed popular support thus far, analysts say, is because of recent gains recorded over armed groups and a secessionist coalition in the north.

Many people are also happy that Bamako has distanced itself from France, a former colonial power increasingly disliked across Francophone West Africa for what some see as its exploitative business interests. Some of the biggest French-owned companies in Mali include oil company Total and telecoms provider Orange.

French troops exited Mali in 2022 because Paris refused to back the military government. Bamako has since cut diplomatic ties and sent UN peacekeepers packing. In their place are Russian fighters from the Wagner mercenary group, known for their ruggedness and reported ruthlessness towards civilians.

Ulf Laessing, director of Sahel research at Germany-based think tank, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, told Al Jazeera that while Russian fighters have helped stabilise parts of the north, the victory is far from complete as the armed groups have simply spread out into central and southern Mali.

“The capital is safe and parts of the north, but outside that, it’s still difficult,”  Laessing said. “In areas like [northern] Timbuktu, government control is still very weak, and the Russians haven’t been able to make a difference to that. There are only about 1,500 of them when even the French were 5,000.”

Although they have suffered deadly ambushes, Wagner fighters helped secure the military’s biggest win in 2023 when Kidal, a rebel stronghold in the north, fell under government control for the first time in 10 years.

Back in 2012, Tuareg rebel groups who were fighting for an independent Azawad state seized Kidal and declared independence. They involved armed groups like JNIM, which later took over the campaign and spread into neighbouring countries, contributing to the current security crisis.

In 2015, a UN-mediated peace agreement with the secessionists was meant to see Tuareg fighters integrate into the army and Kidal return to government control. However, it was never implemented. Goita has since cancelled the agreement, pledging to restore all of Mali’s “territorial integrity”.

When Kidal fell in August 2023, it was both a tactical and symbolic win for the military. Goita’s supporters cite that as one example of why the strongman should stay on to secure the entire country. However, opponents say that argument is a pretext for the military leaders to stay in power for longer.

Attacks on civilians

The military’s relative gains have also come at a cost for civilians, rights groups say. Russian fighters and Malian soldiers have been accused in numerous reports of extrajudicial killings of suspected “militants”, some of whom are wrongly profiled.

Ethnic groups like the Fulani and Dogon – perceived by the Malian army to be supporting armed groups – have been targeted in particular. In reality, experts say villagers themselves are often controlled against their will by powerful armed groups that have set up their own tax and judicial systems. There are reports of armed groups forcibly recruiting men from villages they occupy, while others join armed groups to avenge military attacks on their homes, experts say.

In December, Human Rights Watch (HRW) noted that the Malian army and Wagner fighters “deliberately killed” at least 32 civilians and burned 100 homes in central and northern Mali in 2024. JNIM and ISGS summarily executed at least 47 civilians, burned more than 1,000 homes, and displaced thousands of people between June and December alone, HRW said, adding that those numbers were conservative, at best.

Since Kidal fell, ethnic Tuareg have also been met with increasing levels of violence from the military, although it initially promised that civilians would be safe. Hundreds of people have fled into neighbouring Mauritania, dreading Wagner fighters or the “white men with masks” who burn homes and execute those they suspect of being rebel fighters, according to reporting by The Washington Post.

Some 3.3 million people are now believed to be displaced across Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger due to the violence, according to the UN’s refugee agency. The number of newly displaced people last year in Mali alone reached nearly 400,000.

As the political climate in Bamako becomes more restrictive, experts say Malians far from the centre are suffering the worst effects of the crisis. With the armed groups changing locations and continuing attacks, the purely military approach Goita insists on may no longer be sufficient, analysts warn, and dialogue might be necessary.

“When you intensify fighting, you will, of course, see more attacks; it is just logical,” Diallo said. “And it’s ordinary civilians who are bearing the brunt of that.”

Who Killed Shireen? also lifts lid on US attempts to stifle truth about the 2022 killing of veteran Al Jazeera journalist.

Filmmakers behind a new documentary on the killing of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh by Israeli forces say they have uncovered the identity of the soldier who pulled the trigger.

Who Killed Shireen?, a 40-minute investigative documentary released on Thursday by Washington, DC-based media company Zeteo, identifies the killer as a 20-year-old Israeli soldier who was on his first combat tour in the occupied West Bank and lifts the lid on attempts by the United States to avoid holding ally Israel accountable for the murder.

Dion Nissenbaum, the executive producer of the documentary, told Al Jazeera that its makers had set out to uncover exactly who was behind the killing – a secret closely guarded by Israel up to now, according to Zeteo – and that they hoped the findings would lead to further investigations by the US.

The administration of former US President Joe Biden had “concluded early on that an Israeli soldier had intentionally targeted her, but that conclusion was overruled internally”, he said.

“We found some concerning evidence that both Israel and the Biden administration had covered up Shireen’s killing and allowed the soldier to get away without any accountability,” he added.

Anton Abu Akleh, Shireen’s brother, said the documentary was “really important” for her family. “I’m sure it will shed more light and prove that she was systematically targeted like other journalists in Palestine by the Israeli army,” he said.

The documentary features exclusive interviews not just with ex-US officials but also former top Israeli officials and soldiers, as well as journalists who knew Shireen personally.

“We hope that people will be reminded of what an icon Shireen was,” said Nissenbaum.

In ‘cold blood’

Abu Akleh was wearing a helmet and a clearly marked press vest when she was killed while covering an Israeli raid on the Jenin refugee camp on May 11, 2022, an act that the Al Jazeera Media Network condemned as a “cold-blooded assassination”.

Investigations into her killing carried out by news agencies, rights groups and the United Nations have all concluded that Abu Akleh was killed – likely deliberately – by Israeli soldiers.

Israel initially tried to deflect blame for the incident and suggested that Palestinian fighters killed the journalist, but it eventually walked back that claim and acknowledged its troops were responsible for her death, saying it was “an accident”.

A year later, Israel’s military said it was “deeply sorry” for the death of Abu Akleh, but said it would not launch criminal proceedings against the soldiers believed to be behind the killing.

The US dropped its request for an Israeli criminal investigation after Israel’s apology.

Abu Akleh’s death shocked the world and focused an international spotlight on Israeli killings of Palestinian journalists.

Reporters Without Borders said on Friday that Israeli forces killed nearly 200 journalists in the first 18 months of Israel’s all-out assault on Gaza, at least 42 of whom were slain while doing their job.

Seoul’s military says launches may have been to test weapons intended for export.

North Korea has fired a flurry of short-range ballistic missiles into the sea off its east coast, South Korea’s military has said, in what Seoul called a possible test of weapons intended for export.

North Korean forces launched the missiles from an area near the eastern port city of Wonsan between 8:10am (23:10 GMT on Wednesday) and 9:20am (00:20 GMT), South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said on Thursday.

The missiles flew up to 800km (500 miles) before landing in the Sea of Japan, the JSC said.

The launches are the fourth round of ballistic missile tests carried out by North Korea this year, after the firing of several different missile types in January and March.

“Our military, under the strong South Korea-US combined defense posture, is closely monitoring various North Korean activities to prevent any misjudgment (by the North),” the JSC said in a statement.

Lee Sung Joon, a JSC spokesperson, said in a briefing that the launches may have been to test the “performance or flight stability” of planned missile exports.

Lee did not specify which country might receive the missiles, but Pyongyang has been a key backer of Russia in its war in Ukraine.

North Korea has sent missiles, artillery and some 15,000 soldiers to Russia to support its war effort, according to South Korea’s National Intelligence Service.

About 4,700 North Korean soldiers have been killed or injured in fighting so far, according to the intelligence service.

Pyongyang last month acknowledged the deployment for the first time, with state media quoting North Korean leader Kim Jong Un saying his forces would help “annihilate and wipe out the Ukrainian neo-Nazi occupiers and liberate the Kursk area in cooperation with the Russian armed forces”.

North Korea signed a landmark mutual defence treaty with Russia last year following a state visit to the reclusive country by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Thursday’s missile launches also drew condemnation from Japan, with Japanese Defense Minister Nakatani Gen telling reporters that Tokyo had lodged a protest with Pyongyang.

Jalen Brunson made two free throws with 12.7 seconds to play, lifting the New York Knicks to a 91-90 win over the host Boston Celtics and a 2-0 lead in their Eastern Conference semifinal series.

Boston had a chance to recover in the final seconds on Wednesday, but Mikal Bridges knocked the ball away from Jayson Tatum and New York took possession.

Josh Hart had a game-high 23 points for New York, which trailed by 20 points in the third quarter and by 16 in the fourth. The Knicks received 21 points and 17 rebounds from Karl-Anthony Towns. Bridges put up 14 points – all in the fourth quarter.

Brunson, finished with 17 points and a game-high seven assists, said of the decisive foul shots, “I got up there, heard the noise and then I just tried to block everything out. And then I made two.”

Knicks coach Tom Thibodeau said, “We started slowly, got in a big hole, dug out way out and then guys made a lot of tough plays. (Our players) were at their best when their best was needed down the stretch.”

Derrick White and Jaylen Brown each scored 20 points for the Celtics.

“They made the necessary plays to win,” Boston coach Joe Mazzulla said of the Knicks. “We put ourselves in position to do that and we just didn’t make the plays (down the stretch).

“You just take a look at it and figure out where you have to be better and put a full 48 minutes together. Have an understanding that it’s going to be difficult, but that’s why we do what we do. Figure out where we have to get better and do that. We got to get on the road and we got to find a way to win.”

Game 3 of the best-of-seven series will be played on Saturday in New York.

New York took its first lead on a Brunson layup that made it 87-86 with 1:59 to play. Another Brunson layup capped a 21-2 run that stretched New York’s lead to three points before two Tatum free throws pulled the Celtics within one point with 44.9 seconds left.

Boston took a 90-89 lead on a Tatum dunk with 18.5 seconds to go, but Brunson knocked down two free throws on the ensuing possession.

Tatum, who averaged 26.8 points per game during the regular season, was held to 13 points, but he grabbed 14 rebounds.

Boston also received eight points off the bench from Kristaps Porzingis, who didn’t play in the second half of Game 1 because of an illness. Porzingis played 14 minutes in Game 2.

The Celtics played without Sam Hauser, who sustained an ankle injury in the third quarter of Game 1.

Boston led 24-13 after one quarter on Wednesday and 50-41 at halftime. The Celtics were up by 16 before the Knicks finished the second quarter on an 11-4 run. Tatum was held to two points in the first half.

The Celtics extended their lead to 70-50 on a Porzingis dunk with 4:05 remaining in the third, but New York scored the final eight points in the quarter to cut Boston’s lead to 73-61 entering the final frame.

Boston was again foiled by poor 3-point shooting. The Celtics were 10 of 40 (25 percent) from three-point range on Wednesday after going 15 of 60 (25 percent) in their overtime loss on Monday, when they also squandered a 20-point lead.

“The way the game goes now, you can make up ground a lot quicker with the way teams shoot threes,” Thibodeau said. “For the writers around us, they always think every lead is safe, but it’s not. Everything does matter.”

Thunder rout Nuggets in Game 2

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander scored 34 points to lead the Oklahoma City Thunder to a 149-106 home blowout of the Denver Nuggets in Game 2 of their Western Conference semifinal series on Wednesday.

The Thunder, who set a franchise single-game playoff scoring record, tied the best-of-seven series 1-1 in the run-up to Game 3 in Denver on Friday.

“We knew what was at stake tonight,” Gilgeous-Alexander said. “We came out desperate.”

After losing on a 3-pointer in the closing seconds of Game 1, the Thunder made sure the Nuggets wouldn’t have a chance to pull off another late shocker. Oklahoma City poured it on early, scoring 45 first-quarter points and stretching the lead to 24 just more than 10 minutes into the game.

The Thunder tied the NBA playoff record for points in a half with 87, leading by as many as 35 before intermission. The only other team to score 87 points in a half during the postseason was the Milwaukee Bucks in the second half of a second-round game in 1978 against the Nuggets.

“I didn’t really look at tonight as a response as much as I looked at tonight as just us being who we are, and that’s how we’ve been all season,” Oklahoma City coach Mark Daigneault said. “We don’t really respond to the last game. When we win, we don’t have more confidence. When we lose, we don’t have more urgency.”

Denver’s reigning NBA Most Valuable Player (MVP) Nikola Jokic, who scored 42 points in Game 1, was limited to 17 points and fouled out of the game in the third quarter.

Here is where things stand on Thursday, May 8:

Fighting

• A three-day ceasefire declared by Russia to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany came into effect at midnight, Moscow time (21:00 GMT, Wednesday). Ukraine has not committed to abide by the ceasefire, proposing a 30-day cessation in fighting instead.

• Russian aircraft launched guided bombs on the Sumy region of northern Ukraine in the early hours of Thursday morning despite the ceasefire, Ukraine’s air force said in a post on Telegram. There were no immediate reports of casualties or damage.

• Apart from the Ukrainian air force’s statement about Russia launching guided bombs, there were no other reports of attacks on Ukrainian cities early on Thursday.

•  Russian forces shot down 12 Ukrainian drones approaching Moscow, the capital’s mayor, Sergei Sobyanin, said on Wednesday. Russia’s aviation watchdog said two airports – the Zhukovsky airport in the Moscow region and the main airport in Kaluga – were temporarily closed.

Politics and diplomacy

• Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Moscow had never opposed a ceasefire in Ukraine, Russian state-run news agencies reported on Wednesday, after United States envoy Keith Kellogg said Russian President Vladimir Putin may be obstructing a comprehensive peace deal.

• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in his nightly address on Wednesday that he stood by an offer to observe a 30-day ceasefire. “We are not withdrawing this proposal, which could give diplomacy a chance,” Zelenskyy said.
•  US Vice President JD Vance said during an appearance at the Munich Security Conference that Russia was “asking for too much” in its initial offer of a peace deal.

Economy

• In an interview with the Reuters news agency, Ukraine’s Central Bank governor, Andriy Pyshnyy, said Kyiv is considering a shift away from the US dollar. Potential accession to the European Union and “the probability of global-trade fragmentation”, among other reasons, are forcing the central bank to review whether the euro should be the reference currency for Ukraine’s hryvnia, Pyshnyy was quoted as saying.

On Wednesday morning, India carried out multiple missile attacks on parts of Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, in which at least 26 people were killed, including a three-year-old child.

India has claimed its Operation Sindoor targeted nine sites with “terrorist infrastructure”.

In response, Pakistan has claimed it has brought down five Indian planes – but India has not commented on this claim. At least 10 civilians have been killed in Indian-administered Kashmir due to Pakistani fire since Wednesday morning, according to local officials.

Al Jazeera visualises what has happened so far and the military capabilities of both countries.

Why did India attack Pakistan?

On Wednesday morning, Pakistan’s armed forces said Indian missiles struck six locations, including four places in Punjab province – the first time that India has hit Pakistan’s most populous state since the 1971 war between the neighbours.

The remaining two places targeted were Muzaffarabad and Kotli, both in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

India claims that it also struck a seventh location – Bhimber, also located in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

The attacks are India’s response to a deadly attack on tourists on April 22, in which gunmen killed 25 tourists and a local pony rider in the scenic town of Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir. According to multiple witness accounts, the attackers separated the men from the women and tried to pick non-Muslims as their targets. The gunmen subsequently escaped, and Indian security forces are yet to find them 16 days later.

India and Pakistan tensions at a glance

In 1947, the British colonial rulers drew a line of partition, dividing the Indian subcontinent into Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority India. What followed was one of the largest – and, perhaps, bloodiest – migrations in human history.

Seventy-eight years on, the two nations remain bitter foes. But now they have nuclear arms.

The tension between India and Pakistan has escalated sharply once again after the Pahalgam attack.

The Muslim-majority Kashmir region, a former princely state, has been in dispute since the partition of India. India, Pakistan and China each control a part of Kashmir. India claims all of it, while Pakistan claims the part administered by India.

The two countries have gone to war four times, and there have been numerous cross-border skirmishes and escalations, including one in 2019 after at least 40 Indian soldiers were killed in a suicide attack claimed by the Pakistan-based armed group, Jaish-e-Muhammad.

In retaliation, India launched air strikes in Balakot, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa later that month, claiming that its jets had struck “terrorist” bases, killing many fighters. Many independent analysts have questioned whether India actually struck bases of armed groups and whether it killed as many fighters as it claims it did.

What are the military capabilities of India and Pakistan?

According to Global Firepower’s 2025 military strength rankings, India is the fourth-strongest military power in the world, and Pakistan is ranked as the 12th strongest.

India is the fifth-largest spender in the world on military. In 2024, it spent $86bn on its military, or 2.3 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a leading defence and armaments think tank.

In comparison, Pakistan spent $10.2bn, or 2.7 percent of its GDP, on the military in 2024.

India’s total military strength is 5,137,550 personnel, which is almost three times larger than Pakistan’s 1,704,000. Neither country has mandatory conscription.

India possesses 2,229 military aircraft, compared with Pakistan’s 1,399.

India has 3,151 combat tanks, compared with Pakistan’s 1,839.

Pakistan’s navy covers its 1,046 kilometre-long (650-mile) southern coastal borders in the Arabian Sea and possesses 121 naval assets, while India’s mainland coast covers nearly 6,100km (3,800 miles) with 293 naval assets.

India and Pakistan’s nuclear arms race

According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICANW), a global coalition to ban nuclear weapons, in 2023, countries spent an estimated $91.4bn on nuclear weapons, with India spending $2.7bn and Pakistan $1bn.

India carried out its first nuclear test in May 1974, and in May 1998, conducted another five tests, declaring itself a nuclear weapons state.

Pakistan carried out its first nuclear tests shortly after India’s in 1998, officially becoming a nuclear weapons state.

Since then, the two born together, star-crossed nations have been engaged in an arms race that has cost them billions of dollars.

According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ (CSIS) Missile Defence Project, New Delhi nuclear deterrents are mainly aimed at rivals Pakistan and China. India has developed longer range missiles and mobile land-based missiles. In conjunction with Russia, it is in the developing stages for ship and submarine missiles.

The CSIS also states that Pakistan’s arsenal consists primarily of mobile short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, which have enough of a range to target India. China’s significant technical assistance on its nuclear and missile programmes has helped Pakistan in recent years.

Who supplies arms to India and Pakistan?

According to SIPRI, the cross-border tensions between the two nations fuel arms imports by both countries.

India was the second-largest arms importer from 2020-2024, after Ukraine, bearing an 8.3 percent share of global imports. The majority of India’s imports come from Russia, although it has been shifting its arms sourcing to France, Israel and the United States.

Across the border, Pakistan’s arms and weapons imports increased by 61 percent between 2015–19 and 2020–24 as it started to receive deliveries, including combat aircraft and warships. On a global scale, Pakistan is the fifth-largest arms importer with 4.6 percent imports in 2020–24.

Since 1990, Pakistan’s main supplier has been China. China supplied 81 percent of Pakistan’s arms imports in 2020–24; Russia supplied 36 percent of India’s arms during the same period.

US president says he will announce decision on waterway during trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

United States President Donald Trump has said he will make a decision on how the US refers to the “Persian Gulf” during an upcoming visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Wednesday, Trump said he expected his hosts to ask about the name the US uses for the waterway during his first trip to the Middle East since retaking the White House.

“I’ll have to make a decision,” Trump said in response to a question about whether he would make an announcement on the body of water’s name.

“I don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings. I don’t know if feelings are going to be hurt.”

“I’m going to be given a briefing on that and I’ll make a decision,” Trump added.

Trump’s comments came after US media reported that he plans to use the May 13-16 trip to announce that the US will begin referring to the body of water as the Arabian Gulf or the Gulf of Arabia.

The name of the waterway has long been a source of tensions between Arab nations and Iran.

Iran argues that the “Persian Gulf” is the appropriate name in light of historical evidence, including ancient maps, that shows it is part of its territory.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and other Arab states use the term “Arabian Gulf” or “the Gulf”.

In 2023, Tehran summoned the Iraqi ambassador to protest his country’s use of the name “Arabian Gulf Cup” for the region’s flagship football tournament.

In 2012, Iran threatened to sue internet giant Google for leaving the waterway nameless on its online map services.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the latest suggestions of a name change as “indicative of hostile intent toward Iran and its people”, and warned that such a move would “only bring the wrath of all Iranians from all walks of life”.

“Such biased actions are an affront to all Iranians, regardless of their background or place of residence,” Araghchi said in a post on X early on Thursday.

“Let’s hope that the absurd rumours about the PERSIAN Gulf that are going around are no more than a disinformation campaign by ‘forever warriors’ to anger Iranians all over the world and agitate them.”

In one of his first actions as president, Trump in January signed an executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America”.

A jury in the United States has acquitted three former police officers in the controversial beating death of Tyre Nichols, a 29-year-old father who was killed after a traffic stop in Memphis, Tennessee.

On Wednesday, former officers Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley and Justin Smith were found not guilty in a state-level case that included charges of second-degree murder, aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, official misconduct and official oppression.

This was their second criminal trial, after facing federal charges for Nichols’s death as well.

In that case, the three officers were also acquitted of the most serious charges they faced, though they were found guilty of witness tampering for allegedly attempting to cover up the beating.

There were five police officers in total involved in the Nichols killing, which took place on January 7, 2023. As video of the beating spread online, Nichols’s death reignited the debate over law enforcement violence and the over-policing of Black communities.

In the wake of the verdict, Memphis District Attorney Steve Mulroy told reporters that Nichols’s family was “devastated” and “outraged”.

“We can understand why they would be outraged, given the evidence,” Mulroy said.

“Was I surprised that there wasn’t a single guilty verdict on any of the counts or any of the lesser-included offences, given the overwhelming evidence that we presented? Yes, I was surprised,” he added. “Do I have an explanation for it? No.”

All five police officers involved in the beating were members of the Memphis Police Department’s SCORPION unit, a now-defunct squad that focused on alleged crime hotspots in the city. The outcry after Nichols’s death led to it being disbanded.

On the day of his killing, Nichols was pulled over for allegedly driving recklessly, though prosecutors have cast doubt on that motive, pointing out that police body cameras show no evidence of wrongdoing.

Officers pulled Nichols from his car and tased him while he was on the ground. Nichols then attempted to flee. He ran into a residential neighbourhood not far from where his mother lived, where the five police officers wrestled him to the ground and proceeded to kick, punch and beat him with a baton.

Cameras captured Nichols crying out to his mother for help. He died three days later in hospital. An autopsy identified his cause of death as blunt force trauma to the head.

Two of the police officers involved – Desmond Mills Jr and Emmitt Martin – had avoided trial by striking deals with federal prosecutors in exchange for guilty pleas. The two reportedly took plea deals related to the state charges as well.

Wednesday’s verdict was the culmination of a nine-day-long trial for the other three officers.

The defence team for the three sought to shift the blame to the other officers for the bulk of the violence. It also accused Nichols of resisting arrest and not complying with police orders, leaving the officers fearful for their safety.

“This is Emmitt Martin’s and Tyre Nichols’s doing,” said Martin Zummach, a defence lawyer for Smith, one of the three officers.

Zummach also alleged that credit and debit cards not belonging to Nichols were found in his car after his beating. That, he told the jury, could explain Nichols’s decision to flee the scene.

But prosecutors in the case argued that Nichols fled out of fear for his life. They also said the officers had a responsibility to stop the beating, which caused tears and bleeding in Nichols’s brain.

Video of the beating was also shown to the jury from different angles, as the prosecutors tried to convey the violence of Nichols’s final moments.

The trial, which saw seven days of hearings and two days of jury deliberations, took place in Hamilton County, a majority white area in Tennessee. A judge had previously ordered the court proceedings be moved away from Shelby County, where Memphis is located, for fear of that the public scrutiny could bias the jury pool.

Civil rights lawyer Ben Crump, who represented the Nichols family, released a statement after Wednesday’s decision denouncing the outcome.

“Today’s verdicts are a devastating miscarriage of justice,” the statement reads. “The world watched as Tyre Nichols was beaten to death by those sworn to protect and serve.”