At a meeting of his cabinet at the White House two weeks ago, US President Donald Trump looked around the long room filled with his top advisers, administration officials and aides, and made a prediction.

The next Republican presidential candidate, he said, is “probably sitting at this table”.

“It could be a couple of people sitting at this table,” he added, hinting at possible electoral clashes to come.

Despite a constitutional amendment limiting him to two four-year terms, his supporters chanted “four more years” at a rally last Tuesday night in Pennsylvania. Trump said at the time that the final three years of his second term amount to an “eternity”.

In the cabinet room last week, Trump was clear when discussing prospects for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination: “It’s not going to be me.”

The next presidential election may seem a long way off, but Trump’s own speculation – and certain frictions within Trump’s coalition – suggest that the jockeying to succeed and define the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement after Trump is well underway.

In last month’s local elections, the Republican Party lost support among the minority and working-class voters who helped Trump win back the White House in 2024.

Members of his team have feuded over policy. And some, most notably Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, have cut loose from his orbit, accusing the president of losing touch with the Americans who gave him power.

Some international and domestic media have speculated about MAGA base fractures.

On Monday, a headline in The Washington Post asked, “MAGA leaders warn Trump that the base is checking out. Will he listen?”

The warning signs are there. While Trump has long been known for being in tune with his base, the months ahead will pose a series of challenges to the president and his movement. Nothing less than his political legacy is at stake.

It was all smiles and talk of historic presidential achievements inside the friendly confines of Trump’s newly redecorated, gold-bedecked cabinet room two weeks ago.

However, the presidential contenders Trump might have considered as he surveyed the table underscore the challenge of preventing the MAGA movement from disintegrating.

Vice-President JD Vance sat directly across from the president. As his running mate, he is widely considered to be Trump’s most likely heir apparent – the favourite of Trump’s sons and libertarian Silicon Valley tech billionaires.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was on the president’s immediate right. The former Florida senator, who competed with Trump for the Republican nomination in 2016, had spent the past 10 years undergoing a MAGA transformation.

He has jettisoned his past support for liberalising immigration policy and his hard line on Russia in lieu of Trump’s America First foreign policy. But if there is anyone close to an old-guard Republican with influence in Trump’s party, Rubio tops the list.

Then there is Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, whose vaccine scepticism and “Make America Healthy Again” agenda have sent earthquakes through the US health bureaucracy; he sat two down from Rubio. The Democrat-turned-independent-turned-Republican embodies the peculiar ideological alliances Trump forged during his re-election campaign last year.

And finally, Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, was tucked off to the corner of the table. While the former South Dakota governor is not considered a major presidential contender, her advocacy for aggressive immigration enforcement—including a recent call for a full travel ban on “every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies”—has made her a prominent face in the administration’s policies.

Each might believe they could, if they chose to run, become Trump’s political heir and take control of the political movement that has reshaped American politics over the last decade.

But to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin’s comments at the birth of American democracy, whoever wins the Republican nomination will have been given a winning coalition – if they can keep it.

Of course, none of this is guaranteed – nor is it certain that the next generation of MAGA leaders will be someone from the president’s inner circle. Trump stormed the White House as a political outsider. The next Republican leader may follow a similar path.

“It’s going to be up to the next Republican president who follows Trump to set him or herself apart,” says former Republican Congressman Rodney Davis of Illinois, who now works for the US Chamber of Commerce.

“But at the same time make sure that you don’t go too far away, because clearly it’s Donald Trump [who] got elected president twice.”

When the November 2028 presidential election rolls around, American voters may not even want someone like Trump. Some public opinion polls suggest that the president may not be as popular as he once was.

A survey by YouGov earlier this month indicated the president had a net approval rating of -14, compared with +6 when he took office again in January. Then there are concerns about the economy and his relentless efforts to push the boundaries of presidential power.

Leadership of Trump’s movement still represents the keys to the Republican empire, however, even if that empire has drastically changed in recent years.

“I think the Republican coalition has become fundamentally different over the last few decades,” said Davis, who served in Congress from 2013 to 2023. “The Republican coalition that existed when Ronald Reagan was elected is not the Republican coalition anymore.”

Back in the 1980s, the Reagan coalition was a fusion of free-market economics, cultural conservatism, anti-communism and international foreign affairs, says Laura K. Field, author of Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right.

Trump’s party, she continues, was perhaps best described by long-time Trump adviser and current State Department official Michael Anton in a 2016 essay advocating for Trump’s election. In contrast with the Reagan era, its core principles include “secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy”.

Earlier this month, the conservative Manhattan Institute released a comprehensive survey of Republican voters, shedding more light on the composition of Trump’s coalition.

It suggested that 65% of the current Republican Party are what it calls “core Republicans” – those who have supported party presidential nominees since at least 2016. (If they were alive in the 1980s, they may well have voted for Reagan.)

On the other hand, 29% are what the Institute called “new entrant Republicans”. It is among those new Republicans that the challenge to the durability of Trump’s coalition presents itself.

Only just over half said they would “definitely” support a Republican in next year’s midterm congressional elections.

According to the survey, the new entrants are younger, more diverse and more likely to hold views that break with traditional conservative orthodoxy. They hold comparatively more left-leaning views of economic policy, they tend to be more liberal on immigration and social issues, and they may also be more pro-China or critical of Israel, for example.

Jesse Arm, vice-president of external affairs at the Manhattan Institute, told the BBC in an email: “A lot of the conversation about the future of the right is being driven by the loudest and strangest voices online, rather than by the voters who actually make up the bulk of the Republican coalition.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, the so-called new entrant Republican voters are significantly less supportive of some of Trump’s would-be heirs. While 70% of core Republicans have positive views of Rubio and 80% for Vance, just over half of new entrants feel that way about either.

Other findings could be more concerning for Republicans.

More than half of new entrants believe the use of political violence in American politics “is sometimes justified” – compared to just 20% among core Republicans.

It also suggests they may be more likely to be tolerant of racist or anti-Semitic speech and more prone to conspiratorial thinking – on topics like the moon landings, 9/11 and vaccines.

Trump was able to attract these voters into his coalition. The question is whether he and his political heirs can keep them there – or if they even want to.

“The real takeaway is not that these voters will ‘define’ the post-Trump GOP, but that future Republican leaders will have to draw clear lines about who sets the agenda,” argues Mr Arm.

“The heart of the party remains normie Republicans, not the edgelords that both the media and the dissident right are strangely invested in elevating.”

The divides revealed in the Manhattan Institute poll help explain some of the most notable frictions within the Trump coalition over the past few months.

The Trump-Greene feud that culminated in the latter’s resignation from Congress began with her backing of a full release of the government files connected to the Jeffrey Epstein underage sex-trafficking case – long a source of conservative conspiracy theories.

It broadened, however, into a critique of Trump’s Middle East policy and accusations of his failure to address cost-of-living and healthcare concerns for low-income American voters.

An earlier high-profile MAGA split erupted over Trump’s economic policy, with billionaire Elon Musk, a strong supporter and member of Trump’s inner circle at the start of the year, going on to condemn certain tariffs and government spending policies.

The president has, for the moment, largely tried to stay out of another bitter clash within conservative ranks over whether Nick Fuentes, a far-right political commentator and Holocaust denier, is welcome within the conservative movement.

It’s a dispute that has roiled the influential Heritage Foundation and pitted some powerful right-wing commentators against each other.

According to Ms Field, those who follow Trump may find it a difficult conflict to avoid. “Nick Fuentes has a giant following,” she says. “Part of the conservative movement’s power comes from catering to this part of the GOP.”

In the halls of the Republican-controlled Congress, some signs of friction with the president’s agenda are showing. Despite White House lobbying, it couldn’t stop the House from passing a measure mandating release of the Epstein files.

The president has also been unable to convince Senate Republicans to abandon the filibuster, a parliamentary procedure Democrats in the minority have been able to use to block some of Trump’s agenda.

Meanwhile, Trump’s party has been stumbling at the polls, with the Democrats winning governorships in Virginia and New Jersey last month by comfortable margins.

In dozens of contested special elections for state and local seats over the past year, Democrats have on average improved their margins by around 13% over similar races held in last November’s national elections.

All of this will be front of mind for Republicans ahead of the 2026 mid-term congressional elections – and it will do little to ease the concerns held by some that, without Trump at the top of the ticket, their coalition will struggle to deliver reliable ballot-box victories.

Yet even a defeat next year – or in 2028 – is unlikely to mark the end of Trumpism.

The ascent by Trump’s Maga movement to the pinnacle of American power has been far from a smooth one. It includes a mid-term rout in 2018 and Trump himself losing in 2020, before his re-election last November.

But the changes that Trump has wrought within the Republican Party itself appear to be foundational ones, according to Ms Field. His MAGA coalition builds on strains of populist movements in the US that date back decades or more – from Barry Goldwater’s insurgent presidential campaign in 1964 to the Tea Party’s protests during Barack Obama’s presidency.

These developments are not sudden. They are forces in American politics that have been underground for a while but have been just kind of fermenting.”

The old Republican order, she argues, is a relic of the past.

“The Trump movement is here to stay and there’s no real likelihood of the old establishment returning with any sort of clout – that much is clear.”

Biffy Clyro bass player James Johnston has announced he will not join the band on their upcoming UK and European tour because of mental health and addiction issues.

The 45-year-old wrote to fans on the band’s social media pages, saying he had concealed his issues for a long time.

James Johnston recently began receiving professional help and reassured his fans that there is hope for recovery.

The Kilmarnock rock band are due to kick off their tour on 9 January in Belfast and will continue to perform over the summer with dates in Australia and New Zealand.

Many of their UK dates, including a performance at Glasgow’s OVO Hydro at the end of January, have sold out.

Johnston wrote, “I am heartbroken to let you know that I will not be joining the band on the upcoming tours.

“For some time, I have been struggling with mental health problems that have resulted in addiction issues, which I have kept hidden for a long time.”

“This has caused significant problems for myself and everyone around me – the time has come to properly address my illnesses and deal with them.”

He said he was extremely sorry to frontman Simon Neil and his twin brother Ben – the band’s drummer – and thanked them “for their continued love, patience, support and understanding throughout this time”.

Session bassist Naomi MacLeod will step in for the band in the meantime.

The post prompted an outpouring of support from fans.

One said, “Thank you for putting yourself first, James. The hardest part is accepting that you need help. We’re here when you’re ready to come back.”

Another added, “Sending loads of love, brother. You’ve done the hardest thing, which is facing it. We’re all rooting for you.”

Biffy Clyro recently announced the biggest show of their career – headlining London’s Finsbury Park in July 2026.

Biffy Clyro recently announced the biggest show.

The trio have been one of the UK’s biggest rock bands since their formation in the early 2000s, with eight top-five albums – four of them number one – amassing over a million sales.

Their international breakthrough came with 2009’s Only Revolutions, which went platinum in the UK and received a Mercury Prize nomination.

The album contained two of their biggest hits – Bubbles and Many Of Horror, which later became a number one hit for X Factor winner Matt Cardle (under the title “When We Collide”).

Futique, released in September, is the band’s first album in four years – following a hiatus.

The record received rave reviews, with the NME calling it one of Biffy’s “most personal and definitive records to date”.

Mojo magazine said the trio had found a renewed sense of purpose.

At first glance, my emails are polite and warm; after all, “I’m just checking in” on a deadline, but “no worries either way.”

However, a closer examination reveals that unnecessary apologies, smiley faces, exclamation marks, and even kisses punctuate my messages.

I believe I’m being friendly and approachable, but according to experts, these linguistic habits may be quietly undermining how seriously I’m taken at work.

Careers coach Hannah Salton and etiquette coach William Hanson explain why so many of us write like this and the impact it could be having on how we’re perceived and even promoted at work.

“Many thanks!” I’ve responded to numerous emails, and while my punctuation may seem excessive, a complete stop can come across as abrupt.

People use exclamation marks to show “positivity and enthusiasm,” says Hannah.

Women use them three times more often than men, a recent study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology found.

She thinks that’s likely down to the idea that “women are often judged more harshly than men when they are direct and are called ‘bossy’ and other gendered negative words.”

And while a single exclamation mark isn’t the problem, the cumulative effect can be, warns Hannah.

“If it looks fake or like it’s covering up insecurity, it could impact credibility,” she explains.

Written communication is notoriously easy to misread, which is why many of us insert an emoji as a picture of our warmth or humour.

But etiquette coach William Hanson warns this can backfire.

“One emoji can mean different things to different people or something entirely unintended,” he says.

“It would be better if people used words and a good command of English,” he advises.

Emojis can have an “infantile connotation,” which could lead people to perceive you as younger, less senior, less capable, or less responsible, he says.

“I would not put an emoji in an email,” he says. “You can be friendly in your writing and remain professional at the same time.”

And when it comes to signing off with a kiss, he says, “I would never put a kiss on the end of an email unless I kissed them on the cheek in real life.”

“Are you following me, and does this all make sense?”

Emails containing reassurance checkers can be self-deprecating, Hannah says, adding that over time, that tone can subtly shape how someone is perceived.

“As a manager, it’s a difficult balance between being liked and respected; if you’re not direct, there’s a risk of creating the impression of being less capable,” she says.

“There are definitely times where communicating in an overly apologetic or overly measured way can make you come across as less impactful.”

“A lot of it is unconscious,” Hannah says. “No one reads an email and thinks, ‘Oh, they don’t back themselves’; it’s more subtle than that.

“But if you’re consistently communicating in a people-pleasing way, that can build up an impression of someone who doesn’t back themselves or who is potentially less competent.”

Here are some of the things you might want to consider losing in order to appear more professional, our experts suggest:

• Qualifying words such as “just” (“just checking,” “just wondering”).
• Pre-emptive apologies like “sorry to bother you” or “I’m sure you’re really busy, but…”
• Reassurance checkers such as “does that make sense?”, “hope that’s ok” or “no worries either way”
• Exclamation marks
• Emojis
• Kisses or overly warm sign-offs

Hannah and William stress it’s not about stripping all warmth or personality from professional communication.

“Personal style is important,” Hannah says. “Showcasing personality at work is not a bad thing. You don’t want to feel like you have to filter everything you write and remove any personality from it.”

But at the same time you shouldn’t use certain words and symbols “as a tool to be liked”.

A practical way to spot and reduce these habits without losing personality is to pay attention to the emails you receive and notice how different styles make you feel – what sounds clear, confident or reassuring, and what feels excessive, she says.

Salton says AI tools can also be useful for reviewing drafts and removing excess filler or qualifier words.

A Primal Scream concert has been cancelled over claims antisemitic imagery was shown on stage at a previous gig.

The rock band had been due to perform at the Trentham Live festival at the Trentham Estate, Stoke-on-Trent, on 21 August 2026.

But following criticism of a film screened at a concert in London, the festival’s organiser said it had cancelled the performance, as the graphics used did not align with its values.

Primal Scream said the film was a “piece of art” that was meant to provoke debate, not hate.

The film was screened on stage during the band’s performance of ‘Swastika Eyes’ at a one-off gig at The Roundhouse in Camden last Monday.

It appeared to show the Star of David entwined with a swastika in the eyes of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The slogans “stop genocide” and “free Palestine” were shown on a large screen.

The graphics were used at a recent Primal Scream concert.

Confirming the Trentham Live cancellation, a spokesperson for Trentham said, “The graphics used at a recent Primal Scream concert do not align with our values. We therefore decided to cancel their performance at Trentham Live 2026.

“While we understand some fans may be disappointed, our priority is ensuring we host an inclusive and fun event for all and we will announce a replacement headliner for the Friday night.”

Ticketmaster has contacted fans who bought tickets to tell them organisers had cancelled the band’s appearance.

Following the London gig, Primal Scream were reported to the Metropolitan Police by the Community Security Trust, which claimed the video risked “encouraging hatred of Jews”.

It was also condemned by the Campaign Against Antisemitism, which described the video as “sickening and totally inexcusable”.

A spokesperson for the Met Police said the report was being assessed by officers.

Managers of the venue said they deeply regretted that the “highly offensive” graphics were displayed, adding that it was done entirely without their knowledge.

A statement on Primal Scream’s Instagram page said, “The film is a piece of art. It clearly draws from history to question where the actions of current world governments sit in that context.

“It is meant to provoke debate, not hate. “In a free, pluralistic, and liberal society, freedom of expression is a right that we choose to exercise.”

The BBC previously contacted Primal Scream for further comment.

Despite not being able to save all jobs during the Covid-19 pandemic, Rishi Sunak asserts that the government successfully prevented mass unemployment.

The former prime minister, who was chancellor at the time, said it “wasn’t going to be possible to save every person’s job”.

But he said the government was “successful in preventing mass unemployment” and the impact of the pandemic on employment was “considerably better than what anyone had forecast at the early stages of the pandemic”.

Sunak said there was “no playbook” for the economic shock from COVID, and ministers were “dealing with something no one had dealt with before.”

The former PM provided evidence to the public inquiry into the pandemic on Monday, answering questions about the policies he set out to support workers’ incomes and keep businesses afloat.

He said that during the crisis, there was “enormous uncertainty,” with policymakers and experts unsure of the virus’s scale and duration and how the public would respond to government measures.

He said that there was no toolkit or playbook available with instructions on how to handle pandemics like other economic or financial crises.

Over the past three weeks, the inquiry has been focussing on the economic response to the pandemic and hearing from former ministers, Treasury officials, and central bankers.

A key finding from the COVID inquiry last month was that the government did not take the virus seriously enough until it was “too late,” making February 2020 a “lost month” for action.

Sunak’s appearance on Monday was the second time he has taken the stand, after previously providing evidence in December 2023 when he was still prime minister.

He was appointed chancellor of Boris Johnson’s government on 13 February and was preparing to present a budget before the pandemic hit UK shores and the country was put into lockdown a month later.

Sunak told the inquiry that one of his priorities was to prevent mass unemployment and said “speed was paramount” in the government’s response.

He said there was an “acknowledgement” in the Treasury that they were not going to “get everything right away.”

“We could not allow perfection to stand in the way of progress,” he stated. “We had to get things out fast.”

Sunak said, “I’m proud that the impact on living standards, especially for the most vulnerable, was stronger than I would have perhaps anticipated going into this.”

Sunak announced the coronavirus furlough scheme in March 2020.

At his previous appearance in front of the inquiry, Sunak defended his Eat Out to Help Out policy, which was one of the government’s policy measures aimed at supporting businesses reopening after the first lockdown.

Medical officials advised Sunak not to intervene “too early” when the pandemic struck, he told the inquiry.

“Especially in those early conversations, a lot of what the medical and scientific community were advising us at that time was not to go too early with the various interventions, because they were worried about public acceptance of them,” he said.

The furlough scheme was the centrepiece of Sunak’s intervention in the UK economy, designed to stave off a wave of job losses as the country shut down in the face of the virus.

Richard Wright KC, counsel to the inquiry, said hearings to date had received “generally positive evidence” in relation to the policy.

Sunak stated that after the original scheme was implemented, the government created a targeted version of it that “never saw the light of day.”

“We spent an inordinate amount of time over the summer iterating a more targeted version of furlough; hours and hours of work to do exactly that, on the basis that we were moving to a different phase of the pandemic,” he said.

“We developed the JSS (Jobs Support Scheme), but we never implemented it due to another lockdown.”

Sunak added there “wasn’t a way of targeting that I felt comfortable with.”.

The former chancellor responded to criticism that the furlough scheme could have been shorter or longer by saying, “I think this is something where we have to be really careful about hindsight,” but he added that he believed the approach was balanced correctly.

He said, “If this happens again, I don’t see how that time would help someone like me find that balance.”

On support for self-employed workers, Sunak said there were challenges with the scheme, given that those applying had to self-certify.

But he said it was appropriate to support self-employed people and that he would “do it again” if in the same position.

A son of film director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner has been arrested and booked on suspicion of murder after the couple were found dead in their Los Angeles home.

The Los Angeles Police Department said on Monday that Nick Reiner, 32, had been arrested and that he was in custody with no bail.

The deceased couple’s 28-year-old daughter, Romy, found her parents in their home with multiple stab wounds on Sunday, sources told the BBC’s US partner CBS News.

Rob Reiner is known for directing several iconic films.

Rob Reiner is known for directing several iconic films in various genres, including When Harry Met Sally, This is Spinal Tap, Stand By Me, Misery and A Few Good Men.

Emergency services were called to provide medical aid at the Reiners’ Brentwood, California, home at around 15:38 local time (23:38 GMT) on Sunday.

The Los Angeles Fire Department said two people – later identified as Rob Reiner, 78, and his wife Michele, 68 – were pronounced dead at the scene.

Police said Nick Reiner was arrested several hours later, at about 21:15 local time on Sunday. Investigators have not publicly outlined a motive and said the investigation remains ongoing.

Nick Reiner has spoken publicly about his struggles with addiction and homelessness. His experiences formed the basis of the semi-autobiographical film Being Charlie, which he made with his father in 2015.

The family’s home is in Brentwood, a wealthy celebrity enclave full of large mansions, boutique stores, and restaurants. On Monday morning, a security guard stood outside the home as media gathered outside the front gate.

Rob Reiner, the son of comedy great Carl Reiner, began his career in the 1960s and rose to fame playing Meathead in the TV sitcom All in the Family.

He cemented his success with the cult mockumentary This Is Spinal Tap in 1984, which he directed and starred in.

Reiner was married to Laverne & Shirley actress Penny Marshall from 1971 to 1981 and is the adoptive father to Marshall’s daughter, actress Tracy Reiner.

He married Michele Reiner in 1989, whom he said he met during the making of the romantic comedy-drama film When Harry Met Sally. The couple have three children together.

Michele Reiner was an actress, photographer and producer, and the founder of Reiner Light, a photography agency and production company.

Rob Reiner was also known for his outspoken political activism and support for Democratic candidates.

In a post calling their deaths “very sad,” President Donald Trump criticised Reiner, saying that they “reportedly” died “due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction” with “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

“He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession with President Donald J. Trump,” the president wrote.

The police have not commented on a motive, and the investigation is being treated as a homicide.

The president and his allies often used the term ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ in reference to those who are critical of him. Reiner was a vocal critic of Donald Trump.

Several Republicans criticised Trump over the post, including former ally Marjorie Taylor Greene, who said the deaths were a “family tragedy, not about politics or political enemies”.

“Many families deal with a family member with drug addiction and mental health issues. It’s incredibly difficult and should be met with empathy, especially when it ends in murder,” she said.

Trump’s post was also met with anger by some of the Reiners’ friends.

In a post on X, Maria Shriver, the former first lady of California and long-time friend of the Reiners, said the couple were “devoted parents”.

“They deeply loved all their children and they never gave up trying to care for them,” she said.

Sir Elton John, who made an appearance in this year’s Spinal Tap sequel, said, “I am in disbelief at today’s news of Rob and Michele.

“They were two of the most beautiful people I’d ever met and they deserved better.”

Fellow actor John Cusack, who appeared in Reiner’s 1985 film The Sure Thing, called him “a great man”, while Elijah Wood, who starred in 1994’s North, said he was “horrified” by the couple’s deaths.