This is the Global News Podcast from the BBC World Service.
I'm Rachel Wright and in the early hours of Thursday, the 1st of January, these are our main stories.
Donald Trump will pull National Guard troops out of three US cities after a Supreme Court ruling.
And in a New Year's address, President Zelensky says Ukraine will not sign a weak peace agreement with Russia.
Also in this podcast, if every Syrian people will not take this risk, who will build our country?
We speak to a Syrian refugee who's ready to move home.
In the final hours of 2025, Donald Trump announced he was withdrawing federal troops from three US cities Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland.
Over the course of the year, the president has deployed the National Guard to several Democrat-run cities.
He claimed they were needed to crack down on rampant crime and help with immigration enforcement.
I saw today on one of your networks, not a friendly network, They interviewed about 12 people.
Most of them were African-American.
They were black.
And they were saying, please, please, please let the president send it.
These were people from Chicago.
Please, we need help.
We need help.
We can't walk outside.
We're petrified.
But Democrats criticized the move as an unnecessary and unconstitutional abuse of power.
And several legal challenges were filed to block the deployments.
Last week, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal to send troops to Chicago, citing a longstanding law against using the military as a domestic police force.
And now President Trump has announced they'll be withdrawing, claiming that crime rates in the three cities have been reduced.
But he said federal authorities could return if crime rose again.
Our correspondent in Washington, Sean Dilley, told us more.
Some courts have given the federal government temporary permission to carry on with their deployments in some areas, but he's been facing an awful lot of legal challenges and there are now several judges who have said that it's a federal overreach to use these powers to deploy the National Guard in various places across the United States and there is not evidence that it's necessary to send troops in to protect property and in particular to protect federal property because, while the National Guard obviously would normally be aligned to a state, they can under some circumstances be deployed by the federal government.
It's all a question of proportionality.
An awful lot of people think the deployment is quite an extreme reaction, particularly in Washington DC, from where I speak to you now.
The National Guard are absolutely everywhere on an individual basis.
Of course, they are extremely friendly when it comes to tourists and people locally here, but it is still the case that it's controversial.
In washington dc, president trump had essentially at one point overtaken the local law enforcement department, the metropolitan police department, and he has consistently argued that crime is soaring and something needs to be done.
But his critics have suggested that he's been exaggerating isolated incidents at largely peaceful protests to justify the sending in of the troops.
Is there any evidence that the security situation has changed at all in any of these cities as a result of the National Guard presence?
It's almost a little bit early to say, because those annual crime statistics would not be in in the same way.
Certainly, President Trump claims that crime levels have come down in those areas.
But no, I mean, there's no magic bullet there that says, right, OK, crime was at this level.
The National Guard came in on this date and he's been deploying them since June in various places across the United States.
Nowhere can we say, well, hang on a minute, that's definitively reduced crime.
And what's the situation like in the other cities where Trump has deployed the national card?
There are still National Guards deployed here in Washington, D.C.
There are National Guards deployed in Memphis and in New Orleans.
An awful lot of people protesting about that, an awful lot of people very unhappy about it.
Legal challenges do continue.
And likewise, what's happened is in these areas, where there have been protests not just about the National Guard, but based upon the policies of the federal government on immigration and other such issues.
The deployments remain incredibly controversial.
I think what makes this particular decision to withdraw the troops in Portland and LA and in Chicago what makes it notable is if these have led to withdrawals of National Guard.
Could places like Memphis be next?
Sean Dilley in Washington.
While staying in the US.
The Trump administration has also announced a freeze on funding for children's daycare in the Democrat-led state of Minnesota.
This comes after a conservative YouTuber claimed in a video that centers run by Somali immigrants were taking public money without providing care.
From Washington, here's Tom Bateman.
The 42-minute video by conservative YouTuber Nick Shirley presented itself as an expose of Somali-run child daycare centres in Minnesota, using the on-screen techniques of an investigative documentary, claiming the centres were defrauding the state of assistance funds.
But the video lacked the standard journalistic checks, right of reply or editorial process usually involved in making such published allegations.
It went viral and has been praised by the Trump administration, which has now announced a freeze on federal childcare funds to Minnesota.
A backlash accusing Mr Shirley of whipping up tensions with unsubstantiated claims has also taken place online and on the ground, amid a highly charged atmosphere drawing on issues of race, immigration and electoral politics.
Mr Trump has for weeks used a series of fraud cases already uncovered by officials in the state to attack Minnesota's Somali community more broadly, using highly derogatory language.
Last month he said Somalis had ripped off Minnesota, calling them garbage from a country that stinks, who he said he didn't want in the US.
Some 90 people, mostly Somali-Americans, have been charged or convicted in Minnesota over fraudulently claiming millions of dollars of public assistance funds, mainly relating to COVID-era aid programs.
Mr Trump has accused the state's Democrat Governor, Tim Walz, of failing to address the issue, echoing a central charge from Republicans ahead of a 2026 election race in the state, a claim Mr Walz has rejected, saying the state has spent years cracking down on fraudsters.
Tom Bateman.
Let's turn to Ukraine now because, with very little indication that Russia's military invasion is nearing an end, President Volodymyr Zelensky has used his New Year's address to declare that Kiev is not prepared to sign a weak peace agreement with Russia, insisting all it would do is prolong the war.
In a few minutes, a new year will arrive.
And I would give everything, everything in this world, so that in this address I could say that peace too would arrive in a few minutes.
Sadly, I cannot yet say that.
But with a clear conscience, I and all of us can say this.
Ukraine is doing everything possible for peace.
But he did express some optimism, estimating that around 90 of a peace agreement had been agreed following weeks of intensive talks involving the US and European leaders.
President Putin took a very different tone in his New Year's address, expressing confidence in total victory.
This was his message to Russia's soldiers.
You've taken on the responsibility of fighting for your homeland, for truth and justice.
Millions of people across Russia, I assure you, are with you on this New Year's Eve.
They're thinking of you, empathising with you, hoping for you.
We're united in our sincere, selfless and devoted love for Russia.
I congratulate all our soldiers and commanders on the coming new year.
We believe in you and in our victory.
Earlier, both Ukraine and the EU's senior diplomat, Kaya Kalas, had poured scorn on Moscow's claims that Ukraine had launched a massive drone attack on President Putin's residence in Novgorod, hours after Mr Zelensky's talks in Florida with Donald Trump.
So, a relatively upbeat message from President Zelensky and a defiant one from the Kremlin.
How should we interpret those views in this grinding nearly four-year war?
Here's our reporter, Will Vernon.
Things haven't changed significantly on the battlefield in the last year.
Yes, the Russians have made some small gains, but at a really kind of glacially slow pace.
They haven't even managed to fully capture the strategic city of Pokrovsk, which I think we were talking about on this programme maybe two months ago.
I was in Kiev a year ago today, and the mood among Ukrainians was much the same as it is now.
Now right,
Weariness, yes, exhaustion, but also defiance, right?
And a refusal to kind of bend the knee to Moscow.
But it is undeniable that the Russian army has the advantage and Ukraine is is losing ground.
Zelensky mentioned that the peace talks in his address, didn't he?
He said a peace deal is 90% done.
But actually that 10 is absolutely crucial because Vladimir Putin is demanding that Ukraine withdraw entirely from the Donbass region.
Ukraine is instead proposing that both sides pull back.
But I think that's going to be an absolute non-starter for Moscow, because Putin believes he's winning the war.
He's only going to stop his advancing armies if it's on Russia's terms.
And withdrawing Russian troops from the front line is certainly not on Russia's terms.
So it's difficult to see a way forward for that 10%.
And then where are we with this claim by Russia that there was a massive drone attack on one of President Putin's residences?
Well, the Ukrainians continue to deny it.
And they've been joined in that view, as you mentioned, by European officials, most notably Kaya Kallis.
President Trump initially appeared to support Moscow's view of all this.
But he's been posting content on social media suggesting he's perhaps inclined to disbelieve that now.
The Wall Street Journal tonight are reporting that US national security officials have concluded there was no attack on.
But you know that's just one report in that newspaper.
We don't have any other confirmation of that yet.
It's difficult to see why Kiev would decide to attack a presidential residence.
You know, it's a really well-guarded site.
The security around presidential residence in Russia is incredibly tight.
I mean there are many, you know air defense systems.
There are all kinds of electronic jamming and electronic warfare.
You know resources there.
And there's also the question of why would you, the ukrainians, carry out such a risky move?
Right targeting a presidential residence will be a really serious escalation.
Very little evidence that they've done it.
I mean there was some some very badly done shot foot, video footage.
Yes, and the Ukrainians say that this is all Russian disinformation, right to drive a wedge between Ukraine and Washington.
Why the Ukrainians would do that at a time when they're trying to convince Donald Trump that Kiev wants peace and Moscow doesn't.
That would be a really weird thing to do.
Will Vernon.
Still to come in this podcast.
For men, you've got your urinal, you unzip, off you go.
For women.
You've got to find the cubicle, open the door, shut the door, take your trousers down, sit down and then reverse the procedure.
The campaign to build more toilets for women.
The Economist magazine named Syria its country of the year for 2025, celebrating its social and political transformation since the fall of the dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Life in Syria under the new president, Ahmed al-Sharra, is far from perfect.
Religious minorities, including the Alawite and the Druze, still face violence.
But many Syrians who fled the country during its long and bloody civil war have been returning.
Maliki Jazmati, a chef from Damascus, settled in Germany as a refugee in 2015.
She's been back to Syria several times since Assad fell and she told my colleague, James Kumarasamy, that she's preparing to move home.
I can live there without any problem.
The electricity, it's coming back slowly.
Everything, it's changed, but not 360 degrees.
Now I'm start to study if I will open business there in Syria.
And also I will start to open my NGO there to help women, to empower women.
It's interesting, you now feel confident enough to be able to open your business in Syria.
Because I'm Syrian.
If every Syrian people will not take this risk, who will build our country?
If I will say, oh, it's a little bit risky, no one will build our country.
It's an NGO to help women that you're setting up.
Because one of the big criticisms of the new government in Syria is that there are no women in positions of power, that women are not empowered in this new Syria yet at least.
Do you agree with that?
Yes, but it's not only in this new government.
In the Assad regime, we have the same situation.
But now all the media, because the new government, they look like they are Islamic.
All the people thought now the women, they are not in power.
No, no.
Before that also with Assad regime.
We have seen just in the last couple of days more violence and attack on a mosque.
People killed in Syria.
How worried are you about the kind of violence between communities that has been seen over the past year?
Actually, we need a lot of civil peace.
Assad regime, he make a lot of problem between us.
Always when he kill the people in Syria, he will say, we are as a halawi.
It make a lot of hating from the Sunni about the halawi.
So it has roots, it has roots.
It has roots, exactly.
There is people they have like a fire inside them because some of their family they killed in the very hard way.
So we need this kind of peace.
Just a final thought.
What is it like cooking in Syria?
Is it different to cooking in Germany?
In Syria, it's easier for sure.
When I'm cooking there, I feel I come back to my home.
Even if my grandmother.
She's passed away, but I feel all the old women that are around me.
They are like my grandmother.
And also the ingredients, it's the taste of this ingredient, it's like the childhood taste for me.
It's like peace.
Syrian chef Malakey Jazmati.
When Keir Starmer became the UK's Prime Minister in 2024, he promised to make politics less present in British life.
In other words, more boring and less newsworthy.
Instead, there have been high-profile sackings and resignations from his government, divisions within the governing Labour Party over policy and, with it all, plummeting popularity after little more than 18 months in power.
In normal times, all this would benefit the main Conservative opposition party.
But as our political correspondent Rob Watson now reports, these are anything but normal times.
A few days ago I was listening to a phone-in on one of the World Service's sister channels in Britain.
Inevitably, of course, the callers ended up talking about politics.
I was struck by one in particular who said she was totally disillusioned with politics and that Britain's politicians had failed the British people.
I was struck because she sounded so reasonable, so calm and ordinary by which I mean normal and typical and yet so totally fed up.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Of course, voter anger is nothing new.
I remember the same thing at the time of the 2010 general election, when voters were furious in the wake of the scandal over MPs' expenses and the financial crash two years earlier.
But this time it seems even more serious.
For a start, current polling suggests the country's mood has never been so sour, with over 70 of voters saying they expect life in Britain to get worse.
Truly staggering, 70%.
But secondly, this feeling of pessimism and anger is threatening to translate into a serious reshaping of British politics.
To some extent, it's already happening.
Let me explain.
In the past, when one of the two main parties was as unpopular as the current Labour government is now.
The other party, in this case the Conservatives, would benefit.
But that is not what's happening.
Some context.
In the 20 elections between 1945 and 2019, the combined vote share of the two main parties averaged a whopping 805.
Now the polls suggest they can barely muster 35% between them.
All this matters because it may be that the two parties, who have essentially taken it in turns to govern Britain for the last 100 years or so, are losing their grip.
The beneficiaries so far are Reform to the populist right and the Greens and Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties on the left.
You could argue, Britain is becoming, dare one say it, in this post-Brexit era, more like other European countries, where politics is more fragmented and where the traditional post-war parties of centre-left and centre-right have seen a collapse in their support.
So will 2026 be the year in which somehow Labour and the Conservatives fight back?
Or does the fragmentation, with all its potential to yes, revolutionise British politics in a way that would be literally unprecedented in living memory, continue?
It's certainly what I'll be looking out for next year, especially next spring when there are local elections across England and to the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales.
Quiet it won't be.
Rob Watson.
Staying in the UK.
New discoveries at a medieval cemetery near the Welsh capital Cardiff, have brought archaeologists closer to solving a mystery surrounding the women buried there.
Our science editor Rebecca Murrell has been to the site to find out more.
In a field in the Cardiff countryside, archaeologists are getting ready to lift a skull from a grave.
It's 1,500 years old and incredibly fragile.
58 skeletons dating to the 6th or 7th century have been unearthed so far.
But this site is something of a medieval mystery.
What's unusual is nearly all of the skeletons are women.
And while their bones show they lived hard lives, objects found amongst the graves suggest wealth and luxury.
But a major new clue's been discovered.
Buried beneath my feet here is a really intriguing feature.
The team here think it could be some kind of building.
It's about four metres by five metres and it's possibly a shrine or even a small chapel.
What they do know is that this is clearly important.
It's right in the middle of the cemetery.
You can see maybe six graves clustered right around it.
It's a highly desired location for people to be buried.
Tida Davis is an archaeologist at Cardiff University.
Specifically where we have this kind of clustering of graves, sometimes two three, four individuals that have been buried on the same spot again and again.
There doesn't appear to be as much of a taboo over putting bodies in the same place and just moving those still there to one side.
The discovery of the potential building adds to growing evidence that the cemetery was part of a female religious community.
These were high-status women, and artefacts found at the site have been taken to Cardiff University's lab to be studied.
This object, we're very lucky, has a really nice what we call patina.
And so I've been able to clean it just using cotton wool on a cocktail stick and a small amount of water with methylated spirits.
Conservator Nicola Emerson is painstakingly removing the dirt of the dig from a fine copper brooch.
We'd have to do some more analysis, but it's probably bronze.
Also, we think that it was possibly gilded, which would be a coating of gold over the top.
So this would have been a very decorative brooch.
I think it's a very special find for the site.
When you think about this period, particularly if we're talking about religious community, I wouldn't expect to see something as decorative and pretty as this.
The social structures that would have existed, and the ornamentation is probably very different to our modern concept of what that is.
Back at the dig, and domestic items found at the cemetery are also revealing more.
We have a quern stone for grinding flour for bread.
We've got pottery and glass for eating and drinking.
It's clearly not just a place for the dead.
There's a living community here as well.
Dr Andy Seaman is leading the excavations.
So we might want to think of a community which has cut itself off from the rest of society, perhaps as part of a very early and not yet very well understood religious community.
The pieces of this medieval puzzle are starting to come together and there'll be more answers as the excavations continue later this year.
Our science editor, Rebecca Murrell.
Japan elected its first female prime minister, Sanae Takeuchi, in 2025.
After the latest election, there are more than 70 women in the Japanese parliament, the highest number ever.
And most of them, including the prime minister, have submitted a petition calling for more women's toilets in the parliament building to accommodate them all.
There are just two female cubicles close to the chamber where members speak and vote, leading to long queues.
The problem is not a new one, and certainly not one confined to Japan.
Caroline Criado-Perez is the author of Invisible Women exposing data bias in a world designed for men.
She spoke to my colleague, Sean Lay.
When you go to a public toilet in any place right, if it's in the theatre, if it's in a shopping centre, wherever you will find that there are women queuing for that toilet and the men are sauntering in and out of theirs.
It's especially frustrating when you realise that the reason for it is not what we normally think, which is women are faffing about in there, spending too long doing their makeup.
Generally, when public toilets are being designed, the way that planners will allocate space, the space for toilets is they'll do equal floor space, which seems to make sense.
The problem you have is that you can fit more urinals into a particular square footage than you can fit cubicles.
Women can't generally use urinals, so when you have a public toilet of a set square footage that has urinals and cubicles and one that just has cubicles, immediately you've got way more provision.
You can have way more people going in and out of the one that has urinals in it, So immediately men have more provision.
But women need more provision because there's much more demand on the female toilet.
And that is because women are more likely to be taking in other people, for example, small children that they're taking care of, older people that they're taking care of.
Also, women, for various reasons, might need to use the toilet more often because they're pregnant.
And also just biomechanically right.
It just takes a little bit longer to For men.
You go up to your urinal, you unzip off, you go.
For women, you've got to find the cubicle, open the door, shut the door, you know, take your trousers down, probably clean the toilet seat, sit down and then reverse the procedure.
Right.
And that just is, you know, it's small, but it adds up.
So essentially, that is why you find women curing.
That is admirably clear.
What is unclear to me is why this problem persists.
Most people don't really realize that.
They still just sort of think the default thought, which is, oh, equal space, that sounds fair.
And you have to make this slightly protracted argument of why actually equal space isn't fair.
And I think often that argument just isn't made.
But a lot of it is historic.
There's a fascinating history of women's fight for public toilets across London, where it was seen as absolutely shocking that women would be out in public and need the toilet.
There's a thing called the urinary leash, which is about, well, it's kind of what it sounds like.
How far can you go, being tethered to the fact that you're going to need to go at some point and there might not be anywhere?
Caroline Criado-Perez speaking to Sean Lay.
And that's all from us for now but there will be a new edition of the Global News podcast later.
If you want to comment on this podcast or the topics covered in it you can send us an email.
The address is globalpodcast at bbc.co.uk.
You can also find us on X at BBC World Service.
Use the hashtag Global News Pod.
This edition was produced by Stephen Jensen and Peter Goffin.
It was mixed by Holly Smith.
The editor is Karen Martin.
I'm Rachel Wright.
Until next time, goodbye.
