The Trump administration’s patience with peacemaking for Ukraine, always painfully thin, now appears to be running out altogether.

“If it is not possible to end the war in Ukraine, we need to move on,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters after meeting European and Ukrainian officials for talks in Paris.

For President Donald Trump, who swept into office convinced he possessed the skills to quickly end the gravest conflict in Europe since the World War II, there is immense frustration with the lack of progress.

“The President has spent 87 days at the highest level of this government repeatedly taking efforts to bring this war to an end,” Rubio added, as the bloodshed in the war zone continues unabated.

So what would to “move on” look like?

One option might be redouble US military support for Ukraine. Despite Trump’s efforts to court the Kremlin, or perhaps because of them, Russian intransigence has emerged as the main obstacle to peace, such as Moscow’s foot-dragging over Trump’s proposed 30-day ceasefire, to which Ukraine alone has agreed.

Admittedly, fresh deliveries of billions of dollars more of American arms to Ukraine may be an unpopular policy U-turn among some Trump supporters, but a newly invigorated Ukrainian push-back on the battlefield could encourage the Kremlin to reassess its negotiating position.

New, properly tough US sanctions on Russian oil and gas, and those who buy it, have also been touted as a potential means of applying maximum pressure on Moscow.

Problem is, forging a peace in Ukraine is just one of the agenda items in what Trump and the Kremlin see as a much broader, lucrative reconfiguration of US-Russian relations – involving energy deals, space exploration and mining contracts – which Trump may be reluctant to jeopardize.

Back in Paris, Rubio hinted at a possible second, more likely, option.

“It’s not our war. We didn’t start it. The United States has been helping Ukraine for the past three years and we want it to end, but it’s not our war,” Rubio stressed, alluding to the possibility that the US could simply walk away, leaving Ukraine and its European backers to face Russia alone.

That would pose a huge challenge, given Ukraine’s depleted resources and Europe’s dire unreadiness, currently, to bolster the front lines with sufficient military supplies of its own.

For the Kremlin, American disengagement is a double-edged sword. It may give its battered forces a freer hand in Ukraine, but it doesn’t necessarily deliver the win that Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader, insists that he wants, instead dragging out the pain.

Russian troops, who are being killed and injured at an alarming rate, would continue to be fed into the brutal “meat grinder” of the Ukrainian front lines, increasing simmering social pressure on the Kremlin at home.

Pressure on the Russian economy, already weakened by war, would also increase. If there is no peace deal, there is unlikely to be any easing of the punitive international sanctions already straining fragile Russian finances.

Putin, bent on total victory, may regret passing up the extraordinary chance offered by Trump to end his disastrous Ukraine war and cut his country’s substantial losses.

The Trump administration insists it has not yet entirely given up – just hours after Rubio’s comment, Vice President JD Vance said the White House was “optimistic” it could still end the war – but is signalling that that point may be drawing close.

“We need to determine very quickly now, and I’m talking about a matter of days, whether or not this is doable,” Rubio said of peace in Ukraine before heading back to Washington.

The Kremlin is also engaging in the brinkmanship, its spokesman insisting “there are no contacts planned for this week, but, on the other hand, let’s say that the established contacts allow us to very, very quickly agree on such a conversation if necessary.”

There is, it seems, still a narrow scope for a face-saving, last minute breakthrough. But time and patience in Washington to end the war in Ukraine seems to be rapidly running out.

The United States and Iran are due to hold their second round of nuclear talks on Saturday, as what both sides are looking for in a deal begins to take shape.

Delegations from both countries met in Oman last weekend for talks mediated by the Gulf Arab nation. The next round is being held in Rome.

Since last weekend’s talks, which both parties described as “constructive,” remarks from various members of the Trump administration have flip-flopped, oscillating between maximalist demands that Iran has said were “red lines” and a more conciliatory approach the Islamic Republic may concede to.

This comes amid threats by President Donald Trump that the US will resort to military strikes against Iranian nuclear sites, with Israel’s help, should Tehran fail to reach a deal with its interlocutors.

Here’s what we know about the talks.

How the two sides got here

A nuclear deal was reached in 2015 between Iran and world powers, including the US. Under the deal, Iran had agreed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

That agreement was, however, abandoned by Trump in 2018 during his first presidential term. Iran retaliated by resuming its nuclear activities and has so far advanced its program of uranium enrichment up to 60% purity, closer to the roughly 90% level that is weapons grade.

Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful.

Days later, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said the Islamic Republic rejected direct negotiations with the US. He said however that Iran’s response, delivered by Oman, left open the possibility of indirect talks with Washington.

What does Trump want and what are the key issues?

Trump has said that the deal he seeks with Iran would not be similar to the 2015 agreement inked under the Obama administration.

“It’ll be different, and maybe a lot stronger,” he said.

Comments from Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who represented the US last weekend, have suggested differently as of late.

Iran has in recent weeks been vocal with its concerns about striking a nuclear deal with Trump, who it says has a history of backtracking. The Islamic Republic has also voiced objections to any deal that fully dismantles its nuclear program, as opposed to only limiting its uranium enrichment to civilian-only use – as was stipulated under the 2015 agreement.

Formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 deal ensured through a number of mechanisms that Iran’s nuclear program would be exclusively peaceful.

But conflicting remarks from US officials before and after last Saturday’s meeting have muddied Washington’s demands.

Witkoff, who represented the US last weekend, said that moving forward, talks with Iran would be about verification of its nuclear program, but stopped short of mentioning a demand to fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, as other US officials have said in the past. In other words, indicating a deal that would be similar to the Obama-brokered agreement.

“The conversation with the Iranians will be much about two critical points,” Witkoff told Fox News on Monday. The first is verification of uranium enrichment, “and ultimately verification on weaponization, that includes missiles, type of missiles that they have stockpiled there, and it includes the trigger for a bomb.”

However, Witkoff later reversed his position in a statement on X in which he said any final deal with Iran would require it to “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”

Other officials have been hawkish on what the US expects from Iran. On Sunday, a day after Witkoff started talks with Iranian negotiators in Oman, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called on Tehran to fully dismantle its nuclear program.

“Iran, come to the table, negotiate, full dismantlement of your nuclear capabilities,” he said on Fox News.

Iranian officials have dismissed that proposal as a non-starter, accusing the US of using it as a pretext to weaken and ultimately topple the Islamic Republic. Tehran is entitled to a civilian nuclear energy program under a UN treaty.

The UN nuclear watchdog has however warned that Iran has been accelerating its enrichment of uranium up to alarming levels.

What is Iran saying?

Iran this week doubled down on its right to enrich uranium and accused the Trump administration of sending mixed signals.

“Iran’s enrichment (program) is a real and genuine matter, and we are ready to build trust regarding potential concerns, but the issue of enrichment is non-negotiable,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters on Wednesday, state-run Press TV reported.

Foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei weighed in early Thursday on X, likening the shifting US position to “a professional foul and an unfair act in football.”

“In diplomacy any such shifting (pushed by hawks who fail to grasp the logic/art of commonsensical deal-making) could simply risk any overtures falling apart,” he wrote. “It could be perceived as lack of seriousness, let alone good faith. … We’re still in testing mode.”

Iranian media has reported that Tehran had set strict terms ahead of the talks with the US, saying that “red lines” include “threatening language” by the Trump administration and “excessive demands regarding Iran’s nuclear program.” The US must also refrain from raising issues relating to Iran’s defense industry, Iranian media said, likely referring to Iran’s ballistic missile program, which the US’ Middle Eastern allies see as a threat to their security.

Meanwhile, Iran’s highest leadership has approached the talks with extreme caution.

In his first comments on the issue since the Iranian and American negotiators met in Oman, Khamenei said Tuesday that Tehran is “neither overly optimistic nor overly pessimistic” about talks with the United States over its nuclear program.

Where does Israel stand?

Israel has been among the staunchest advocates for Iran to fully dismantle its nuclear weapon and never acquire a nuclear bomb.

On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office issued a statement defending his aggressive policy towards Iran, saying, “Israel will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.”

Dermer was sitting beside Netanyahu in Washington last week when Trump suddenly announced the US-Iran talks would begin imminently. The surprise revelation of the start of negotiations appeared to startle Netanyahu, who has increasingly pushed for a military option against Iran.

Sitting beside Trump at the Oval Office earlier this month, Netanyahu touted a Libya-style nuclear deal between the US and Iran, which in 2003 dismantled the North African nation’s nuclear program in the hopes of ushering in a new era of relations with the US after its two-decade oil embargo on Moammar Gadhafi’s regime.

After relinquishing its nuclear program, Libya descended into civil war following a 2011 NATO-backed uprising that toppled Gadhafi’s regime and led to his killing. Iranian officials have long warned that a similar deal would be rejected from the outset.

Dermer and Mossad director David Barnea met Friday with Witkoff in Paris ahead of the second round of Iran talks.

Earlier this year, US intelligence agencies warned both the Biden and Trump administrations that Israel would likely attempt to strike facilities key to Iran’s nuclear program this year, according to sources familiar with the assessments.

However, The New York Times reported Wednesday that Trump had urged Israel not to strike Iran’s nuclear sites as soon as next month in order to let talks with Iran play out, which could impact planned engagements for Trump’s national security team in the coming days.

The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office did not deny the veracity of the article, instead asserting that Israel’s actions have delayed Iran’s nuclear program.

Responding to the New York Times’ report that he’d waved off Israeli strikes, Trump said on Thursday: “I wouldn’t say waved off,” but “I’m not in a rush to do it because I think that Iran has a chance to have a great country and to live happily without death.”

“I hope they (Iran) want to talk, it’s going to be very good for them if they do, and I’d like to see Iran thrive in the future, do fantastically well.”

Fatima Hassouna, a war documentarian who had covered the conflict in Gaza on the ground for 18 months, was killed along with seven members of her family in an Israeli strike this week.

“If I die, I want a resounding death, I do not want me in urgent news, nor in a number with a group,” Hassouna wrote in a post on Instagram in August 2024. “I want a death that the world hears, an effect that remains for the extent of the ages, and immortal images that neither time nor space buries,” added the photojournalist, who is the subject of a new documentary to be screened at the Cannes Film Festival next month.

The Palestinian Journalists’ Protection Center (PJPC) said it mourns the loss of Hassouna. It said that the strike that killed her targeted her family’s home on Al-Nafaq Street in Gaza City and also killed several of her family members. It described the attack as a “crime” against journalists and a violation of international law.

“Fatima’s powerful photos documenting life under siege were published globally, shedding light on the human toll of the war,” the center said.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said on Wednesday that the target was “a terrorist in Hamas’ Gaza City Brigade” and that steps were taken to mitigate the risk of harm to civilians. “The terrorist planned and executed terror attacks against IDF troops and Israeli civilians,” the IDF said in a statement without providing further details.

Hassouna posted her photos on Facebook and Instagram, where she had more than 35,000 followers. Her images documented the challenges of everyday life in Gaza and the threat of living under Israeli bombardment.

She was featured in Sepideh Farsi’s documentary film, Put Your Soul On Your Hand And Walk, which has been selected to be screened in the ACID section at the 78th Cannes Film Festival in May 2025. A director’s statement describes the film as “a window, opened through a miraculous encounter with Fatima” into the “ongoing massacre of the Palestinians.”

Following the news of Hassouna’s death, the Iranian film director on Friday shared a photo on social media featuring herself on camera with Hassouna, who was smiling. “My last image of her is a smile. I cling to it today,” Farsi wrote alongside the picture.

Farsi said the last time she contacted Hassouna was one day before her death to give her “the happy news” about the documentary. “We both discussed her traveling to France in May to present the documentary in Cannes with me, since she is the main protagonist,” Farsi said.

“I thought it was a mistake when I heard about her death,” Farsi added. “I hope this documentary will shed light on her life in Gaza and serve as a tribute to her memory.”

According to the PJPC, the number of journalists who have died in the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023, has risen to 212, an unprecedented toll according to numerous journalist groups. The organization called on the international community to open an immediate investigation into the incident and hold those responsible to account.

Hassouna’s neighbor, Um Aed Ajur, described Hassouna as proud of the work she was doing. She questioned the strike on her house, saying she and her family “have no connection” to any group. “We have been neighbors for 35 years and have never heard that they are connected to any (group),” she added.

Hassouna’s final post on her Facebook page was a series of photos of Gaza fishermen by the sea last Saturday, less than a week before she was killed. She posted the pictures with a short poem.

“From here you get to know the city. You enter it, but you don’t leave, because you won’t leave, and you can’t,” she wrote.

Despite being dead for more than 300 years, this Indian ruler is still making waves in the nation’s politics.

Aurangzeb Alamgir has become so central to India’s fraught political moment, his memory is leading to sectarian violence across the country.

The sixth emperor of the famed Mughal dynasty, he is considered by many detractors to be a tyrant who brutalized women, razed Hindu temples, forced religious conversions and waged wars against Hindu and Sikh rulers.

And in a nation now almost entirely under the grip of Hindu nationalists, Aurangzeb’s “crimes” have been seized upon by right-wing politicians, turning him into the ultimate Muslim villain whose memory needs to be erased.

Sectarian clashes erupted in the western city of Nagpur last month, with hardline Hindu nationalists calling for the demolition of his tomb, which is about 400 kilometers away.

Seemingly spurred on by a recent Bollywood movie’s portrayal of Aurangzeb’s violent conquests against a revered Hindu king, the violence led to dozens of injuries and arrests, prompting Nagpur authorities to impose a curfew.

As tensions between the two communities continue to mount, many right-wing Hindus are using Aurangzeb’s name to highlight historical injustices against the country’s majority faith.

And they are causing fears among India’s 200 million Muslims.

‘Admiration and aversion’

The Mughals ruled during an era that saw conquest, domination and violent power struggles but also an explosion of art and culture as well as periods of deep religious syncretism – at least until Aurangzeb.

Founded by Babur in 1526, the empire at its height covered an area that stretched from modern-day Afghanistan in central Asia to Bangladesh in the east, coming to an end in 1857 when the British overthrew the final emperor, Bahadur Shah II.

Its most well-known leaders – Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan – famously promoted religious harmony and heavily influenced much of Indian culture, building iconic sites such as the Taj Mahal and Delhi’s Red Fort.

But among this more tolerant company, Aurangzeb is considered something of a dark horse – a religious zealot and complex character.

Aurangzeb “evoked a mixture of admiration and aversion right from the moment of his succession to the Mughal throne,” said Abhishek Kaicker, a historian of Persianate South Asia at UC Berkeley.

“He attracted a degree of revulsion because of the way in which he came to the throne by imprisoning his father and killing his brothers… At the same time, he drew admiration and loyalty for his personal unostentatiousness and piety, his unrivaled military power that led to the expansion of the Mughal realm, his political acumen, administrative efficiency, and reputation for justice and impartiality.”

Born in 1618 to Shah Jahan (of Taj Mahal fame) and his wife Mumtaz Mahal (for whom it was built), historians describe the young prince as a devout, solemn figure, who showed early signs of leadership.

He held several appointments from the age of 18, in all of which he established himself as a capable commander. The glory of the Mughal empire reached its zenith under his father, and Aurangzeb’s scrambled for control of what was then the richest throne in the world

So when Shah Jahan fell ill in 1657, the stage was set for a bitter war of succession between Aurangzeb and his three siblings in which he would eventually come face-to-face with his eldest brother, Dara Shikoh, a champion of a syncretic Hindu-Muslim culture.

Aurangzeb imprisoned his ailing father in 1658 and defeated his brother the year after, before forcibly parading him in chains on a filthy elephant on the streets of Delhi.

“The favorite and pampered son of the most magnificent of the Great Mughals was now clad in a travel-tainted dress of the coarsest cloth,” wrote Jadunath Sarkar in “A Short History of Aurangzib.”

“With a dark dingy-colored turban, such as only the poorest wear, on his head. No necklace or jewel adorning his person.”

Dara Shikoh was later murdered.

A sudden shift

By now, Aurangzeb’s authority had reached extraordinary heights, and under his leadership the Mughal empire reached its greatest geographical extent.

He commanded a degree of respect and for the first half of his reign, ruled with an iron fist, albeit with relative tolerance for the majority Hindu faith.

Until about 1679, there were no reports of temples being broken, nor any imposition of “jizya” or tax on non-Muslim subjects, according to Nadeem Rezavi, a professor of History at India’s Aligarh University. Aurangzeb behaved, “just like his forefathers,” Rezavi said, explaining how some Hindus even held high rank within his government.

In 1680 however, that all changed, as he embraced a form of religious intolerance that reverberates to this day.

The zealot ruler demoted his Hindu statesmen, turning friends into foes and launching a long and unpopular war in the Deccan, which included the violent suppression of the Marathas, a Hindu kingdom revered to this day by India’s right-wing politicians – including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Members of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been quick to point out the cruelties inflicted on Hindus by Aurangzeb – forcing conversions, reinstating the jizya, and murdering non-Muslims.

He also waged war on the Sikhs, executing the religion’s ninth Guru Tegh Bahadur, an act makes Aurangzeb a figure of loathing among many Sikhs to this day.

This brutality was on display in the recently released film “Chhaava,” which depicts Aurangzeb as a barbaric Islamist who killed Sambhaji, the son of the most famous Maratha king, Chhatrapati Shivaji.

“Chhaava has ignited people’s anger against Aurangzeb,” said Devendra Fadnavis, the chief minister of Maharashtra, where Nagpur is located.

Muslims alleged members of the right-wing Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) burned a sheet bearing verses from their holy Quran.

Yajendra Thakur, a member of the VHP group, denied the allegations but restated his desire to have Aurangzeb’s tomb removed.

‘Neither praise nor blame’

Modi’s invocation of the man who led India before him is no surprise.

The prime minister, who wears his religion on his sleeve, has been a long-time member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right-wing paramilitary organization that advocates the establishment of Hindu hegemony within India. It argues the country’s Hindus have been historically oppressed – first by the Mughals, then by the British colonizers who followed.

And many of them want every trace of this history gone.

The Maharashtra district where he is buried, once known as Aurangabad, was renamed after Shivaji’s son in 2023. The triumphs of his forefathers, the great king Akbar and Shah Jahan, have been written out of history textbooks, Rezavi said, or not taught in schools.

“They are trying to revert history and replace it with myth, something of their own imagination,” Rezavi said. “Aurangzeb is being used to demonize a community.”

Modi’s BJP denies using the Mughal emperor’s name to defame India’s Muslims. But his invocation of India’s former rulers is causing fear and anxiety among the religious minority today.

While historians agree that he was a dark, complex figure, and don’t contest his atrocities, Rezavi said it is necessary to recognize that he existed at a time when “India as a concept” didn’t exist.

“We are talking about a time when there was no constitution, there was no parliament, there was no democracy,” Rezavi said.

Kaicker seemingly agrees. Such historical figures “deserve neither praise nor blame,” he said.

“They have to be understood in the context of their own time, which is quite distant from our own.”

Back in Nagpur, demands for the tomb’s removal have gone unanswered, with some members of the Hindu far right even dismissing the calls for demolition.

Local Muslim resident Asif Qureshi said his hometown has never seen violence like that which unfolded last month, condemning the clashes that convulsed the historically peaceful city.

“This is a stain on our city’s history,” he said.

If the idea of robots taking on humans in a road race conjures dystopian images of android athletic supremacy, then fear not, for now at least.

More than 20 two-legged robots competed in the world’s first humanoid half-marathon in China on Saturday, and – though technologically impressive – they were far from outrunning their human masters over the long distance.

Teams from several companies and universities took part in the race, a showcase of China’s advances on humanoid technology as it plays catch-up with the US, which still boasts the more sophisticated models.

And the chief of the winning team said their robot – though bested by the humans in this particular race – was a match for similar models from the West, at a time when the race to perfect humanoid technology is hotting up.

Coming in a variety of shapes and sizes, the robots jogged through Beijing’s southeastern Yizhuang district, home to many of the capital’s tech firms.

Over the past few months, videos of China’s humanoid robots performing bike rides, roundhouse kicks and side flips have blown up the internet, often amplified by state media as a key potential driver of economic growth.

In a 2023 policy document, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology identified the humanoid robotics industry as a “new frontier in technological competition,” setting a 2025 target for mass production and secure supply chains for core components.

Fears have mounted in recent years about how artificial intelligence – and robots – may one day outsmart humans.

And while AI models are fast gaining ground, sparking concern for everything from security to the future of work, Saturday’s race suggested that humans still at least have the upper hand when it comes to running.

The robots were pitted against 12,000 human contestants, running side by side with them in a fenced-off lane.

After setting off from a country park, participating robots had to overcome slight slopes and a winding 21-kilometer (13-mile) circuit before they could reach the finish line, according to state-run outlet Beijing Daily.

Just as human runners needed to replenish themselves with water, robot contestants were allowed to get new batteries during the race. Companies were also allowed to swap their androids with substitutes when they could no longer compete, though each substitution came with a 10-minute penalty.

The first robot across the finish line, Tiangong Ultra – created by the Beijing Humanoid Robot Innovation Center – finished the route in two hours and 40 minutes. That’s nearly two hours short of the human world record of 56:42, held by Ugandan runner Jacob Kiplimo. The winner of the men’s race on Saturday finished in 1 hour and 2 minutes.

Tang Jian, chief technology officer for the robotics innovation center, said Tiangong Ultra’s performance was aided by long legs and an algorithm allowing it to imitate how humans run a marathon.

“I don’t want to boast but I think no other robotics firms in the West have matched Tiangong’s sporting achievements,” Tang said, according to the Reuters news agency, adding that the robot switched batteries just three times during the race.

The 1.8-meter robot came across a few challenges during the race, which involved the multiple battery changes. It also needed a helper to run alongside it with his hands hovering around his back, in case of a fall.

Most of the robots required this kind of support, with a few tied to a leash. Some were led by a remote control.

Amateur human contestants running in the other lane had no difficulty keeping up, with the curious among them taking out their phones to capture the robotic encounters as they raced along.

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court has ruled that a woman is defined by “biological sex” under the country’s equality law – excluding transgender women – in a case that is expected to impact accommodations for trans women in bathrooms, hospital wards, sports clubs and more.

The court ruling on Wednesday is limited to defining the term “woman” within the country’s Equality Act 2010, meaning trans women are no longer protected from discrimination as women, although they remain protected from discrimination in other forms.

But in practice, the impacts of the ruling are likely to be wider than the court suggested. The UK’s equalities regulator has said it will issue new guidance on single-sex spaces following the decision.

The ruling has also energized the polarized debate surrounding transgender rights.

Judges said the ruling should not be seen as the victory of one side over another. But trans rights advocacy groups have called that “an insult” and condemned the court decision as exclusionary, contradictory and concerning for the trans and non-binary communities.

The group of women’s rights campaigners that brought the case, For Women Scotland, popped champagne corks outside the court and said it was grateful for a decision that recognized the need for protections based on biological differences.

Here’s what the ruling means in practice:

Implications for equalities law and single-sex spaces

The head of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission said Thursday that it will issue new guidance on single-sex spaces by this summer.

Those spaces will likely include women-only bathrooms, changing rooms, hospital wards, hostels, prisons, sports clubs, domestic violence women’s shelters and more.

Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said in an interview with the BBC on Thursday that “the ruling is enormously consequential,” and it brings “clarity” that “single-sex services like changing rooms, must be based on biological sex.”

Falkner said that trans people can advocate for neutral third spaces, such as unisex toilets or changing rooms, given that “the law is quite clear” that they “should not be using that single-sex facility.”

Falkner also said the UK’s National Health Service must update its guidance on single-sex medical wards to be based on biological sex. Current NHS policy is that trans people should be accommodated according to the way they dress, their names and their pronouns.

The ruling will also have implications for policing and prisons. The British Transport Police said in a statement that it would adopt an interim position that “any same sex searches in custody are to be undertaken in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee.”

Meanwhile, many businesses and organizations have said they are reviewing the ruling and not yet making any changes. British media report that the EHRC has been inundated with questions from businesses and public bodies regarding what the ruling means for schools, office buildings and women’s charities.

Trans people remain protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment, which is a protected characteristic under the equality legislation. The law also protects against discrimination by perception, which is when someone thinks you are the opposite sex.

Impacts on women’s sports

The Supreme Court decision will impact women’s sports, but exactly how is unclear given that new guidance is in the works and many sports bodies and grassroots sports organizations already have their own policies in place.

Faulkner echoed the stance of World Athletics, telling the BBC that trans women cannot take part in women’s sports.

Guidance on transgender inclusion has already been published by all the sports councils covering England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, as well as UK Sport, which supports high-performance athletes. But it’s not yet clear how that guidance will be updated.

“We are now considering what the ruling means for grassroots sports and clubs,” a Sport England spokesperson said in a statement.

What it means for transgender people

The trans community is “absolutely devastated, because this is clear that but there is no upside to this. We have been basically stripped of the right to exist within UK society,” said jane fae, one of the directors of the advocacy group TransActual UK.

Under that act, trans women could obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC) for legal recognition of their female gender. But following the Supreme Court Ruling, those certificates appear to be only relevant in terms of deaths, marriages and pensions.

While the UK equalities watchdog talked of “clarity,” trans rights campaigners have said the Supreme Court Ruling raised more questions than answers, especially when it comes to the utility of gender recognition certificates and enforcement of “women’s spaces.”

TransActual has criticized the court for not providing a clear definition of the terms “women’s spaces” or “biological sex.” The ruling says a biological woman is someone “who was at birth of the female sex,” but it’s unclear how intersex people fit into the ruling or what accommodations should be made for trans women who have female anatomy parts (like breasts).

Culture war divisions

Although the court said it was not its place to rule on public arguments on the meaning of gender or sex, the decision has taken aim at a central argument of trans activists and progressive groups — that trans women are women.

And in doing so, it has ignited fears of broader “culture wars,” divisive policies and new restrictions in the UK.

On gendered bathrooms, for example, “the UK has had a much more laissez-faire attitude… what we seem likely to be about to see is the sort of imposition of an American style, ‘this is how loos should be,’ sort of thing,” fae said. “It’s Trump-ian.”

Following the ruling, JK Rowling, who financially backed the case, posted on social media: “I love it when a plan comes together.” The author and women’s rights campaigner has been previously criticized for anti-trans comments.

Other campaigners celebrated outside the court, singing “women’s rights are human rights” and holding up signs reading “Fact is not hate: only women get pregnant.”

But the backlash has been swift. Other women’s rights groups and LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations have condemned the ruling and said it rolls back protections provided by the Equality Act.

“Any backsliding should be of concern to everyone that stands against discrimination and oppression in all its forms,” said Scottish feminist organization Engender.

Stonewall, an LGBTQ+ rights charity, said that it shared “the deep concern at the widespread implications” of the court ruling. “It will be incredibly worrying for the trans community and all of us who support them,” it said in a statement, also highlighting that trans people are still protected against discrimination.

A coalition of pro-trans organizations and unions has called for a protest in London on Saturday, saying that the ruling “represents the culmination of the concerted transphobic campaigning we have seen in recent years.”

What it means for British politics

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has so far been silent on the ruling. But a UK government spokesperson said single-sex spaces “will always be protected by this government.”

“We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs,” the spokesperson said.

Starmer and the Labour Party have long struggled with how to address issues of sex and gender. The Supreme Court Decision means the prime minister can avoid wading into the divisive debate and point to the court’s language.

Meanwhile, the opposition Conservative Party has attacked him for past statements that trans women are women and calling for inclusivity in the debate.

“Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either,” Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said in reaction to the court ruling which see called “a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious.”

Badenoch has also called for a review of equality acts and the Gender Recognition Act “to ensure that they are there to prevent discrimination, not for social engineering.”

The government’s next challenge will be wrestling with how to ensure public bodies, businesses and organizations implement the changes surrounding single-sex spaces.