Prince Harry announced on March 25 that he had stepped down as a patron of Sentebale, the charity he co-founded in memory of his mother, after a monthslong dispute between the charity’s chair and the board of trustees broke into the open.

Harry and his fellow co-founder, Prince Seeiso of Lesotho, said they had quit in solidarity with five board members who had resigned over a dispute with the chair, Sophie Chandauka.

Both Ms. Chandauka and the group of former trustees have made allegations of wrongdoing against each other, and both parties said they had submitted claims and evidence of their arguments to Britain’s Charity Commission.

Here’s what we know.

Why did Prince Harry resign from the charity?

Harry founded the charity with Prince Seeiso in 2006. In recent months, the organization’s leadership has been at loggerheads. The five trustees who resigned — Timothy Boucher, Mark Dyer, Audrey Kgosidintsi, Kelello Lerotholi and Damian West — said in a joint statement that they had called on the board’s chair, Ms. Chandauka, to resign from her position, after losing “trust and confidence” in her.

They said that Ms. Chandauka, who was appointed in 2023, responded by filing a lawsuit in Britain “to block us from voting her out,” and that they were resigning to avoid burdening the charity with the cost of the suit.

“We could not in good conscience allow Sentebale to undertake that legal and financial burden and have been left with no other option but to vacate our positions,” the former trustees said in their statement. “This was not a choice willingly made, but rather something we felt forced into in order to look after the charity.”

Prince Harry and Prince Seeiso said in their statement that the former trustees had “acted in the best interest of the charity in asking the chair to step down.” They added: “What’s transpired is unthinkable. We are in shock that we have to do this, but we have a continued responsibility to Sentebale’s beneficiaries, so we will be sharing all of our concerns with the Charity Commission as to how this came about.”

What are Ms. Chandauka’s accusations against the former trustees and Prince Harry?

Ms. Chandauka said in a statement about the former trustees that she had acted to expose what she described as “issues of poor governance, weak executive management, abuse of power, bullying, harassment, misogyny, misogynoir and the coverup that ensued.” (Misogynoir is a term referring to pointed sexism toward Black women.) In addition to filing a case in an English court, she said, she had reported the trustees to Britain’s Charity Commission.

After the five trustees stepped down, Ms. Chandauka appointed four new trustees

In interviews with the British news media, Ms. Chandauka has since accused the prince of engaging in harassment and bullying to try to force her out of her post. A spokesman for Harry declined to comment on her latest claims.

Despite her allegations, Ms. Chandauka said her relationship with Harry had been “fantastic, actually.” But she said, “There are some individuals on the board who thought they could get away with mistreating a woman.”

What is Sentebale?

Harry established Sentebale with Prince Seeiso, the younger brother of King Letsie III of Lesotho, in 2006. Founded in honor of Harry’s mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, and Seeiso’s mother, the charity raised funds for communities affected by the H.I.V. pandemic in Lesotho, a small landlocked kingdom that is one of the world’s poorest countries. In 2019, it expanded its work into nearby Botswana, and to addressing substance abuse, gender-based violence and other social ills among young people.

What happens next?

Both sides have filed claims of wrongdoing with Britain’s Charity Commission, which regulates charities in England and Wales. Although Sentebale operates in southern Africa, it is registered in Britain.

A spokeswoman for the Charity Commission said that the regulator was “assessing the issues to determine the appropriate regulatory steps.”

Follow the latest news on the Trump administration.

President Trump did not rule out seeking a third term in office on Sunday, telling NBC News that he was “not joking” about the possibility and suggesting there were “methods” to circumvent the two-term limit laid out in the Constitution.

In wide-ranging remarks to “Meet the Press,” Mr. Trump said “a lot of people” wanted him to serve a third term, described himself as “pissed off” at President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and vowed to impose tariffs on global rivals, according to a transcript of the interview provided by the network.

“A lot of people want me to do it,” he said to the program’s host, Kristen Welker, about the possibility of a third term. “But we have — my thinking is, we have a long way to go. I’m focused on the current.”

Any attempt to seek a third term would run afoul of the 22nd Amendment, which begins, “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.”

On Sunday, after the release of the interview, the White House reiterated Mr. Trump’s point that he was focused on his current term, and added that it was “far too early to think about” the idea.

“Americans overwhelmingly approve and support President Trump and his America First policies,” Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, said in a statement. He added that Mr. Trump was focused on “undoing all the hurt” done by the Biden administration and “Making America Great Again.”

Mr. Trump has often mused about the idea of a third term, particularly in rallies and speeches that have delighted his supporters, though he has often treated it more as a humorous aside. The interview was the first time that Mr. Trump indicated that he was seriously considering the idea, which his allies have continued to amplify. Already he has likened himself to a king, shown an affinity for autocratic leaders and displayed governance tactics constitutional experts and historians have compared to authoritarianism.

Three days after Mr. Trump was sworn in for the second time, Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would make Mr. Trump eligible for a third term. Such a measure would be extraordinarily difficult: Constitutional amendments require approval by a two-thirds vote of Congress and then the ratification of three-fourths of the states.

In the interview, Ms. Welker noted that she had heard him joke about serving a third term a number of times. Mr. Trump made it clear he considered it a real possibility.

“No, no I’m not joking,” he said. “I’m not joking.”

Ms. Welker asked Mr. Trump whether he had been presented with plans, and he said that he had not — but added that there were “methods which you could do it.”

Ms. Welker suggested one possibility: having Vice President JD Vance at the top of the ticket in 2028, only to pass the office on to Mr. Trump after winning. Mr. Trump acknowledged “that’s one” way it could happen.

“But there are others too,” he said. “There are others.”

Mr. Trump declined to say what those could be.

Derek T. Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and a scholar in election law, said there has been a dissenting view about the provision of the 22nd Amendment — which focuses on being “elected” president without addressing the idea of ascending to the office. However, he said, such a route would be complicated by the 12th Amendment.

Mr. Muller pointed out that the 12th Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the United States.”

Mr. Muller said he very much doubted that would provide a path to a third term for Mr. Trump.

“You’d have to have so many pieces fall into place for this even to be practically viable, on top of this complicated legal theory,” he said.

In his remarks to Ms. Welker, the president also leveled his strongest criticism to date against Mr. Putin, threatening to impose “secondary tariffs” on Russia’s oil if the country thwarted negotiations on a cease-fire deal with Ukraine that would stop the fighting.

The comments signaled growing impatience with the negotiations. Mr. Trump said that tariffs of 25 to 50 percent on Russian oil could be imposed at “any moment” and that he planned to speak with his Russian counterpart this week.

“If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault — which it might not be — but if I think it was Russia’s fault, I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia,” Mr. Trump said.

Mr. Trump has previously referred to secondary tariffs as levies on imports from countries that purchase products from a nation he’s targeted in his foreign policy. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The comments were notable given the steps that Mr. Trump has taken to align himself with Mr. Putin, despite the United States’ support for Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion more than three years ago. Since taking office, Mr. Trump has declined to acknowledge that it was Russia who started the war, falsely declared President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine a “dictator,” but not Mr. Putin, and accused Mr. Zelensky of not wanting peace.

Mr. Trump’s remarks also underscored his increasing promise to use tariffs to compel countries to bend to his domestic and foreign policy goals. In the same phone call, he said he would consider secondary tariffs on Iran if it did not reach a deal with the United States to ensure it did not develop a nuclear weapon, Ms. Welker said.

Mr. Trump told Ms. Welker that he was “very angry, pissed off” at Mr. Putin for questioning the credibility of Mr. Zelensky, and for discussing the prospect of new leadership in that country. Mr. Trump suggested that such comments could set negotiations back, and that they were ”not going in the right location.”

“New leadership means you’re not going to have a deal for a long time, right?” Mr. Trump said.

Russia and Ukraine have agreed to a limited truce, but that has fallen short of the complete pause in combat that Trump administration officials have sought, with Ukraine’s support. The limited cease-fire remains tenuous as Russia seeks more concessions and Ukraine has expressed doubt that a truce would be upheld.

On negotiations about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Mr. Trump said officials from both countries were “talking,” according to NBC’s account of Ms. Welker’s call with the president, although he raised the prospect of military action if economic and other measures do not succeed.

“If they don’t make a deal,” Mr. Trump said about Iran, “there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.”

Earlier this month, Mr. Trump sent a letter to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, urging direct negotiations with the government in Tehran on a deal to curb the country’s advancing nuclear program. The letter said Mr. Trump preferred diplomacy over military action.

Mr. Trump’s raising of secondary tariffs on oil from Russia and Iran was the latest example of the president’s interest in using the prospect of economic pressure on third-party nations.

Last week, he issued an executive order on Monday to crack down on countries that buy Venezuelan oil by imposing tariffs on the goods those nations send into the United States, claiming that Venezuela has “purposefully and deceitfully” sent criminals and murderers into America.

Mr. Trump called the new levies he threatened on buyers of Venezuelan oil “secondary tariffs,” a label that echoed “secondary sanctions” — penalties imposed on other countries or parties that trade with nations under sanctions.

Some trade and sanctions experts said existing secondary sanctions associated with countries such as Russia and Iran already were not well enforced, and questioned whether the United States would have the capacity to pull off new tariff-based penalties.

Three days after Myanmar’s worst earthquake in more than a century ravaged the remote, war-torn city of Sagaing, razing monasteries and apartment buildings, help was still just starting to trickle in.

The city’s 300,000 residents had been left to largely fend for themselves after the 7.7-magnitude quake struck, damaging roads and prompting the authorities to close a bridge over safety concerns. The area was already deeply isolated, cut off from the internet by Myanmar’s military, which has been fighting rebels in a civil war.

By late Monday, some international aid groups began arriving in Sagaing. But local volunteers seeking to help with search and rescue efforts said they were being blocked by the military.

“We are not allowed to freely enter and provide assistance,” said U Tin Shwe, a resident of Sagaing who was standing outside a military barricade at a monastery that had toppled, with monks still trapped under the debris. “Rescue operations can only be carried out with their permission.”

The military government said on Monday that the toll from the earthquake, which ripped through large swaths of Myanmar, including Sagaing, and the cities of Mandalay and Naypyidaw, had surged to 2,056, up from around 1,700 on Saturday. Another 3,900 were injured. Preliminary modeling by the U.S. Geological Survey suggests the number of deaths could be more than 10,000.

Search-and-rescue teams have flocked to the cities of Mandalay and Naypyidaw, the home of the country’s generals. But many people in Myanmar have taken to social media to plead with foreign governments to redirect aid into Sagaing, which was close to the quake’s epicenter and where residents say that over 80 percent of the town has been destroyed.

In Sagaing on Monday, soldiers kept watch at checkpoints but were not seen helping to search for survivors. With no space left in the main hospital in the city, people wrapped their dead in white cloth and laid them on the concrete outside. Hundreds of residents were stranded on the streets, sleeping under plastic tarps with no power, and food and water that is quickly running out.

The disaster was so bad that it prompted the junta to make a rare call for international aid. But it is clear that such aid will only be allowed in on the junta’s own terms. Since the earthquake, countless trucks carrying aid have been stuck overnight at military checkpoints in the city, according to the Centre for Ah Nyar Studies, an independent, nonprofit based in central Myanmar. Then on Monday, a 50-member trauma response team from Malaysia entered Sagaing, the first foreign rescue team to do so, according to local media.

Myanmar’s military regime, headed by Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, has been battling rebel forces for control of Sagaing since it seized power in a coup four years ago. Scrappy groups of ordinary citizens who took up arms against the junta have made it a stronghold of resistance, and the junta has responded with a sustained campaign of airstrikes, beheadings and arson. In the past year, the rebel fighters, who have received training from some of Myanmar’s ethnic armies, have notched significant gains against the military.

Doctors belonging to the Civil Disobedience Movement, made up of government workers who left their jobs following the coup, have been blocked from entering Sagaing, according to Dr. Wai Zan, who works at the Sagaing General Hospital.

“The military is conducting security checks everywhere, making it impossible for them to enter,” Dr. Wai Zan said.

The broader Sagaing region, in central Myanmar, with about 5 million people including in the city proper, is home to the country’s Bamar Buddhist majority. It sits between two rivers — the Irrawaddy to the east and the Chindwin to the west — that serve as vital routes for the army’s transportation of goods, people and military supplies.

Even before the earthquake, Sagaing was at the center of much suffering.

The region has borne the brunt of military airstrikes in the country. And it accounts for the biggest number of internally displaced people in Myanmar, tallying more than 1 million, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Even before the quake, at least 27 townships in Sagaing region already lacked access to clean water and power, according to the Institute for Strategy and Policy-Myanmar, an independent research group. More than half of the houses and buildings in Myanmar that have been destroyed by the civil war were in this region.

“Really extreme violence was carried out: beheadings, dismemberment and different sorts of violent displays meant to intimidate the population,” said Morgan Michaels, a research fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The aftermath of the earthquake offered reminders of the city’s isolation.

Win Mar said that when the earthquake struck, she was sitting outside her house, which “crumbled entirely, with bricks falling one by one.” Her husband and her 16-year-old daughter were trapped inside and died, but it was not until Sunday that volunteers from Mandalay managed to pull their bodies out.

“I have lost everything, my family and my home,” she said.

Because the internet has been cut off since the coup and phone signals are weak, Sagaing residents could not tell the outside world what was happening. The city is overrun by soldiers and militia who closely monitor arrivals of people and aid.

“Nothing is really getting there,” said Joe Freeman, Amnesty International’s Myanmar researcher. “We are mainly worried about aid being blocked by the military because it is their history and pattern.”

Thant Zin, a volunteer trying to help in Sagaing, said aid “efforts are ineffective because we are working with bare hands, without the necessary equipment.”

“Many of the people trapped under collapsed houses are already dead,” he said. “Right now, what we need most is to recover dead bodies.”

Getting aid to the city has been challenging because the military closed the main bridge connecting Mandalay and Sagaing, out of safety concerns, after another bridge, a British colonial-era one, collapsed following the quake. The authorities reopened the main bridge on Sunday, but directed rescue vehicles entering Sagaing to a checkpoint.

Cars and trucks have been unable to pass along damaged roads. The World Food Program, which expected to start distributing food to 17,000 people in Sagaing starting Monday, had to go by ferry.

The agency plans to help 1 million people in conflict zones around the country in the coming weeks, according to Melissa Hein, head of communications for the World Food Program in Myanmar.

On Monday afternoon, a team from Unicef, the United Nations agency for children, arrived in Sagaing after a 13-hour drive from Yangon to Mandalay, according to Trevor Clark, the agency’s regional emergency adviser. He said that so far, the agency’s workers had not encountered any trouble at checkpoints.

Marine Le Pen, the French far-right leader, was found guilty of embezzlement by a criminal court in Paris on Monday and immediately barred from running for public office for five years, setting off a democratic crisis in France.

The verdict effectively barred the current front-runner in the 2027 presidential election from participating in it, an extraordinary step but one the presiding judge said was necessary because nobody is entitled to “immunity in violation of the rule of law.”

Jordan Bardella, Ms. Le Pen’s protégé and a likely presidential candidate in her absence, said on social media, “Not only has Marine Le Pen been unjustly convicted, French democracy has been executed.” Hard-right leaders across Europe, including Viktor Orban, the Hungarian prime minister, appeared to agree.

“Je suis Marine!” Mr. Orban declared.

However, Sacha Houlié, a centrist lawmaker, asked, “Is our society really so sick that we are going to take offense at what is no more and no less than the rule of law?”

The verdict infuriated Ms. Le Pen, an anti-immigrant, nationalist politician who has already mounted three failed presidential bids. Looking grim and murmuring “incredible,” she walked briskly out of the courtroom before the judges had completed reading her sentence.

She did not address the dozens of camera crews outside the courtroom, but she was expected to speak on French television on Monday evening. She had spoken of her “serenity” before the hearing but there was little evidence of that.

An opinion poll on the presidential election published on Sunday gave Ms. Le Pen 34 to 37 percent of the vote, more than 10 points ahead of her nearest rival. President Emmanuel Macron is term-limited and cannot run again.

Ms. Le Pen has denied any wrongdoing in the case, which involved accusations that her party, the National Rally, illegally used several million euros in European Parliament funds for expenses between 2004 and 2016.

The court also sentenced Ms. Le Pen, 56, to four years in prison, with two of those years suspended. The court said the other two could be served under a form of house arrest. She was fined 100,000 euros, or about $108,000.

Ms. Le Pen’s electoral ineligibility is effective immediately. As a result, only a successful appeal before the 2027 deadline to enter the race would allow her to run.

That is not impossible, but it will be difficult. The appeals process is slow in France, and even if a new trial took take place before the election, it is unclear whether the prosecution’s case would be overturned.

The presiding judge, Bénédicte de Perthuis, acknowledged that a politician prevented from running for office might later win on appeal, and she said the tribunal could not be indifferent to “the need to seek social consensus.”

But the gravity of the case, and the apparent refusal of those accused to acknowledge the facts, made political disqualification necessary, the judge said. The court has to “insure that elected officials, like any citizen, do not benefit from any favorable treatment,” she noted.

The verdict could usher in a period of renewed political turmoil if Ms. Le Pen decides to lash out against France’s fragile government or if anger spills over into the streets. The government struggled to pass a budget this year and could still be toppled at any time by lawmakers in the lower house, the National Assembly, where Ms. Le Pen’s party is the single largest.

The verdict does not affect her current mandate as a lawmaker in the lower house. But if Mr. Macron calls snap parliamentary elections, as he did last year, she will not be eligible to run again. Given the current impasse in a divided assembly, such a dissolution this year is plausible.

Ms. Le Pen and her party stood accused of embezzling a sum close to $5 million in European Parliament funds over more than a decade. But the accusations did little to hinder the National Rally’s rise from the fringes of French politics to its heart.

Ms. Le Pen has endeavored to rebrand the party, founded in 1972 by her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, steering it away from its antisemitic and racist roots. Its platform, however, has remained resolutely hard right, calling for extreme toughness on crime and drastic measures against immigration.

The court ruled that Ms. Le Pen had played a “central role” in the scheme to siphon funds from the European Parliament and to fill up its coffers at a time when they were precariously empty. Ms. Le Pen was a European lawmaker from 2004 to 2017.

The party used lawmaker assistants who were paid with European Parliament funds to perform tasks for the party that were unrelated to E.U. business, the court ruled.

Ms. Le Pen, a lawyer by training, argued that lawmaker assistants were not direct employees of the European Parliament.

The court disagreed. It also rejected Ms. Le Pen’s argument that the case was a political witch hunt.

“No one is on trial for engaging in politics,” Judge de Perthuis said.