Naval chiefs from across northern Europe signed a "statement of intent" to work up the details for the "Northern Navies Initiative" following a meeting last week, General Sir Gwyn Jenkins revealed.

He said the grouping would complement NATO, with the advantage of being able to react potentially more quickly in a crisis than the larger alliance.

"We know we have no time to lose, which is why by the end of this year, I want us all to have signed a formal declaration, laying the foundations for what will be a vital and enduring partnership for many years to come," the First Sea Lord said in a lecture at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think tank.

"I aim to create a maritime force that trains, exercises and prepares together. A force designed to fight immediately if required, with real capabilities, real war plans, and real integration."

It would be like an existing UK-led military partnership called the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) - involving their 10 members, which include the Baltic states, Nordic countries and the Netherlands.

But Canada may also join the naval initiative.

The aim is for "a force that generates the maritime, air and amphibious strike capabilities that we all need. This would be a visible and persistent conventional deterrent. A force that is stronger, collectively, than the sum of its parts", he said.

Nations would be able to switch and swap sailors, spare parts and ammunition to bolster capacity and capability, combing crewed and increasingly uncrewed vessels in what General Jenkins envisages for the UK to be a "hybrid navy".

He described this as a "family of allied fleets - something that has not happened in decades".

The new northern naval force could be commanded at a major maritime headquarters at Northwood, on the outskirts of London.

Such a capability was needed in the face of an increased threat from Russia's Northern Fleet.

"We have seen Russian incursions into our waters jump by almost a third in the last two years," General Jenkins, the first Royal Marine to lead the Royal Navy, said.

"In 2025 alone, the Royal Navy was required to respond dozens of times in support of homeland defence against Russian navy surface vessels.

"That is why the Royal Navy has to be ready every day, of every month, of every year."

Read more:
'Three Russian submarines targeted UK cables'
British forces cleared to board Russian 'shadow fleet' ships

He said he was most concerned by Russia's submarine force.

"Like our surface fleet, our submarines spent a substantial amount of time responding to Russian subsurface activity last year - and all the signs suggest the pattern of behaviour by Moscow will only worsen further in future."

Critics were horrified from the start at the Starmer government dispatching the King to try to shore up transatlantic relations.

All a bit embarrassing and tawdry, they felt. Not to put too fine a point on it, they've worried the King was being pimped out like a royal escort in the knowledge that a narcissistic president would parade his trophy guest, hoping to bask in his royal limelight.

Follow the latest on the King's state visit

Trump says his love for the royal family goes back to his mother, but he also knows Americans go a bundle for a bit of royal bling, and none of this does any harm to his approval ratings, which are at a record low.

The suspicion that Trump would exploit his royal guest was rather borne out when he apparently tried to stick words into the King's mouth, saying Charles agrees with him over Iran getting the bomb.

Yes, the King delivered two very good speeches.

They appealed to Americans' better nature on NATO, security and Ukraine and gently corrected the record on Britain's commitment to the alliance.

They also sailed pretty close to the wind.

A descendant of the great tyrant King George III, as Americans remember him, King Charles schooled his hosts in the perils of excessive executive rule by one man.

It was quite a moment. Democrats got the point and erupted in appreciation. Donald Trump, who has ruled by executive fiat more than any other president, pretended not to notice.

Pointed oratory then, but two good speeches do not necessarily make a worthwhile royal visit.

The proof will be in the outcome.

King Charles was sent in the hope that his one-man soft power roadshow could improve transatlantic relations, despite the downside, which was potentially considerable.

He was, after all, hanging out with a man accused in the Epstein files of raping a woman when she was 13. The FBI took the allegations seriously enough to interview her a number of times. That is quite apart from the other tawdry tales surrounding this president, who has consistently denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.

The fact that the King also did not meet any of the survivors of Epstein despite their invitation will rankle with many.

So was it worth it?

On past form no.

The last Trump visit to the UK cost the taxpayer a reported £14m. The unpopular president was given a lavish welcome in Windsor Castle, ringed in high-wall security. Like The Truman Show, it was put on all for the benefit of just one man.

Government supporters and pundits applauded the visit as a masterpiece of British soft power. The palace had played a blinder.

But that has since proven premature. Relations have since only disintegrated further.

In January, the president belittled the enormous sacrifices made by British soldiers in Afghanistan, saying they stayed "a little back, a little off the front lines".

In the same month, Trump ratcheted up tariffs on the UK, threatening to revoke them only if Britain supported his hare-brained scheme to buy Greenland.

And Britain's refusal to join in with Trump's illegal war on Iran has plunged relations to a new nadir.

Read more:
Best pictures so far from the King's US state visit
Unpacking the King's speech to Congress

King Charles is a past master at handling colourful characters and extracting the maximum soft power potential. But even he has had his work cut out salvaging anything from the steaming mess of transatlantic relations under Donald Trump.

The visit undoubtedly bolsters Britain's image and prestige among Americans generally, but was that ever in doubt? It also shores up support with the president's political opponents, useful should they ever get their acts together and their hands back on power.

But do not expect anything more than a passing sugar high in relations with the administration in Washington under this president.

The trial centres on the 2015 birth of OpenAI, maker of ChatGPT, as a non-profit start-up, primarily funded by Mr Musk, before it evolved into a capitalist venture now valued at $852bn (£632bn).

Mr Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has accused Mr Altman, OpenAI, and its president, Greg Brockman, of wooing his donations by promising to build a non-profit to develop AI responsibly, before pivoting to create a for-profit entity in 2019 to enrich themselves.

On Wednesday Mr Musk, who invested about $38 million in OpenAI between December 2015 and May 2017, gave his account of OpenAI's early years, recounting how he lost confidence that Mr Altman would keep it a nonprofit.

Questioned by his lawyer Steven Molo, Mr Musk said by late 2022 he was concerned Mr Altman was trying to "steal the charity. "It turned out to be true," Mr Musk added.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers stepped in multiple times throughout the day, including after Mr Musk accused OpenAI's lawyer, William Savitt, of trying to trick him.

"Your questions are not simple," Mr Musk said. "They are designed to trick me essentially."

When pressed by the judge to answer whether it was true or false that OpenAI was formed as a non-profit in December 2015, Mr Musk said it is not always simple, comparing it to asking "have you stopped beating your wife?"

That response caused Judge Rodgers to cut Mr Musk off, stating clearly: "We are not going to go there".

Mr Musk also said he was concerned that Microsoft, another defendant in the case that invested $10bn (£7.42bn) in OpenAI in 2023, had "captured" the organisation.

OpenAI has argued ‌that Mr Musk is motivated by a compulsion to control the company.

Mr Savitt told jurors during his opening statement on Monday that Mr Musk helped finance OpenAI's early growth and pushed it to become a for-profit business, one he might eventually lead.

He has also argued that Mr Musk is seeking to use the case to bolster his own AI company, xAI, which lags OpenAI in ​user adoption.

Read more from Sky News:
UK borrowing cost at its highest since 1998
Sir Stephen Fry seeks £100k damages claim after 'breaking multiple bones'

Musk is seeking $150bn (£111bn) in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, although any award would go to OpenAI's charitable arm.

He also wants the company to revert to a non-profit, with Mr Altman and Mr Brockman removed as officers and Mr Altman removed from the board.

OpenAI is currently structured as a public benefit corporation, in ‌which the non-profit and other investors, including Microsoft, hold stakes.

The trial comes as OpenAI prepares for a potential initial public offering that could value it at $1trn (£740bn), which a Musk win could derail.

The trial started on Monday and is expected to last about four weeks.

They are accused of helping the infamous Sinaloa cartel send vast amounts of narcotics across the border.

The cartel was previously run by drug lord 'El Chapo', now in a US prison, and those named are said to be aligned with a faction now run by his sons, known as the "Chapitos".

Ruben Rocha Moya, who has been Sinaloa governor since 2021, is the most high profile of those named.

The indictment alleges he "attended meetings with the Chapitos, at which he promised to protect the Chapitos as they distributed massive quantities of drugs to the United States" and has allowed them to act with impunity.

"Similarly, the other defendants have directly and repeatedly helped the Chapitos in exchange for massive drug-fueled bribes," the unsealed New York indictment claims.

Mr Rocha Moya's office did not respond to early request for comment, but he has previously denied claims of corruption.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said her government had not seen "any evidence" of the charges.

"Any investigation in the United States against any person in Mexico must have evidence reviewed by the (Mexican) Attorney General's Office," she said.

The other people accused are current and former government or law enforcement officials.

They include the mayor of Sinaloa's capital Culiacan, a senator, and the state's deputy attorney general. None of the ten are in custody.

US attorney Jay Clayton said Mexican drugs cartels "would not operate as freely or successfully without corrupt politicians and law enforcement officials on their payroll".

He called the Sinaloa group "a ruthless criminal organisation that has flooded this community with dangerous drugs for decades".

The charges come after America's ambassador to Mexico, Ron Johnson, said last week the US was launching a campaign targeting Mexican officials linked to organised crime.

"Corruption not only hinders progress, it distorts it. It increases costs, weakens competition, and erodes the trust upon which markets depend. It is not a problem without victims," Mr Johnson said.

President Trump has frequently spoken of his determination to fight the flow of drugs such as fentanyl and cocaine, and in January claimed it as justification for deposing Venezuela's president.

Another major drug boss known as "El Mencho" was killed in February after a Mexican special forces operation ‌using US intelligence support.

The yield - the interest rate demanded by investors to hold 30-year government bonds - stood above 5.7% ahead of Wednesday's close while its 10-year counterpart also hit its highest since July 2008, according to the Reuters news agency..

The UK is not alone in facing bond market pressure as a result of the strains facing economies from rising energy prices but its yields, the highest in the G7 of advanced economies, reflect additional investor concern over the state of the public finances and sticky inflation that has long preceded the Middle East conflict.

The higher the yield, the higher the cost to the UK taxpayer of servicing the government's debt.

Money latest: Lotto winner comes forward just before claim deadline

The pace of price increases in the economy is set to pick up in the coming months, adding to the UK's borrowing costs burden and creating pressure for state aid from the chancellor at the same time.

Rising oil prices are widely expected to feed in beyond fuel and heating to include household energy, food and many other goods in the weeks and months to come.

The lack of results in peace efforts between the US and Iran was clear to see on oil markets on Wednesday, following several false dawns earlier this month on White House claims of progress.

A barrel of Brent Crude for June delivery was up by almost 8% at $120, exceeding the $119.50 war time high witnessed on 9 March, late in the evning.

The FTSE 100 ended the day almost 1.2% lower, building on losses across the week that reflected growing worries for the UK and wider global economy.

Neil Wilson, investor strategist at Saxo UK, said of the mood: "Stock markets sold off and oil climbed as President Trump told aides to prepare for prolonged blockade (of the Strait of Hormuz) instead of return to conflict.

"He's apparently met US oil executives today and may be seeking ways to boost domestic production to offset the impact of a longer blockade."

The Strait usually accounts for a fifth of the world's global oil and natural gas shipments.

The consequences of that loss of volumes are taking centre stage for the Western world's biggest central banks.

The Federal Reserve in the US on Wednesday evening - set to be the last policy meeting for chair Jay Powell despite his term being slightly extended - kept its key interest rate at its existing target range of 3.5%-3.75%. Policymakers, however, noted rising concerns around inflation and three shied away from commentary that forecast the Fed's next move was likely to be a cut.

The Bank of England and the European Central Bank are also not expected to raise interest rates in anticipation of the inflation wave to come, preferring to wait for more data. They make their respective decisions on Thursday.