Trump to be hosted by King at Windsor during unprecedented second state visit
This will be Mr Trump's second state visit to the UK – an unprecedented gesture towards an American leader, having previously been feted by a state visit in 2019.
The House of Commons will not be sitting at the time of Mr Trump's visit as it will be in recess for party conference season, meaning the president will not be able to address Parliament as French President Emmanuel Macron did during his state visit this week.
However, the House of Lords will be sitting.
In February this year, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer presented the US president with a letter from the King as he invited him for the visit during a meeting at the White House.
As the pair were sat next to each other in the Oval Office, Sir Keir handed the president the personal invitation, later saying 'this is truly historic and unprecedented'.
After reading it, Mr Trump said it was a 'great, great honour', adding 'and that says at Windsor – that's really something'.
In the letter, Charles suggested he and the president might meet at Balmoral or Dumfries House in Scotland first before the much grander state visit.
However, it is understood that, although all options were explored, there were logistical challenges surrounding an informal visit, with complexities in both the King and Mr Trump's diaries meaning a private meeting was not possible over the course of the summer months.
This week, a senior Police Scotland officer said the cost of policing a visit by Mr Trump will be 'considerable' and that the force will look to secure extra funding.
It emerged on Wednesday that the force was in the early stages of planning for a visit at the end of this month, which is likely to see the president visit one or both of his golf clubs in Aberdeenshire and Ayrshire and require substantial policing resources and probably units to be called in from elsewhere in the UK.
Precedent for second-term US presidents who have already made a state visit is usually tea or lunch with the monarch at Windsor Castle, as was the case for George W Bush and Barack Obama.
The late Queen hosted Mr Trump during his first state visit.
News of the plans for the September visit comes days after the King wrote to Mr Trump to express his 'profound sadness' after catastrophic flooding killed nearly 90 people in Texas.
Charles 'offered his deepest sympathy' to those who lost loved ones over the July Fourth weekend, the British Embassy in Washington said.
Back in March, Mr Trump sent the King his 'best wishes' and 'good health' in a phone call with Sir Keir after Charles spent a brief period in hospital after experiencing temporary side effects from his cancer treatment.
The September state visit comes after Charles visited Canada back in May where he opened the nation's parliament.
Many Canadians saw the King's two-day visit to Ottawa as a symbol of support for the country that has faced the unwanted attention of Mr Trump's trade war against his neighbour and threats to annex Canada.
This week, French president Mr Macron and his wife Brigitte were hosted by the King and Queen during his three-day state visit.
Mr Macron's itinerary included a glittering state banquet at Windsor Castle, a carriage ride through the historic Berkshire town and a ceremonial welcome.
The state dinner was attended by the Queen, the Prince and Princess of Wales, the Prime Minister and senior members of the Cabinet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
21 minutes ago
- Spectator
Reform's motherland, Meloni's Italian renaissance & the adults learning to swim
First: Nigel Farage is winning over women Does – or did – Nigel Farage have a woman problem? 'Around me there's always been a perception of a laddish culture,' he tells political editor Tim Shipman. In last year's election, 58 per cent of Reform voters were men. But, Shipman argues, 'that has begun to change'. According to More in Common, Reform has gained 14% among women, while Labour has lost 12%. 'Women are 'more likely than men… to worry that the country is broken.' Many of Reform's most recent victories have been by women: Andrea Jenkyns in the mayoral elections, Sarah Pochin to Parliament; plus, there most recent high profile defections include a former Tory Welsh Assembly member and a former Labour London councillor. What makes Reform's success with women all the more remarkable is that it appears organic; 'we haven't forced this' says Farage. So why are women turning to Reform UK? Tim Shipman and Sarah Pochin MP join the podcast to discuss. Next: is Italy experiencing a renaissance? From Italy, Owen Matthews argues that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has revived her nation. While he says that Italy has been 'suffering from the same economic malaise' as the rest of Europe, the macroeconomics covers up the true affordability of the country. Espressos cost €1.20, pizzas are no more than €10, and rents in even the swankiest areas are 'laughably' cheap compared to Britain. Plus, Owen sees none of the 'media catastrophisation' over issues like immigration, social cohesion and militant Islam that appears to grip the UK. So how has Meloni done it? To discuss, Owen joined the podcast alongside Antonello Guerrera, UK & Westminster correspondent for the Italian newspaper Repubblica. And finally: one in three British adults cannot swim This week, Iram Ramzan provides her 'notes on' learning to swim saying, 'it's humiliating to admit that at 37' she can't. She's not alone though – one third of British adults cannot swim, and the proportion appears to be rising. Iram highlights the disparities between different communities; 76 percent of South Asian women for example cannot swim 25 metres. Iram joined the podcast to discuss further, alongside fitness professional and entrepreneur Elle Linton who also learnt to swim in her thirties. Plus: what small error led Rachel Johnson to get a telling off from Noel Gallagher? And Max Jeffery reports from court, where the Spectator and Douglas Murray have won a defamation claim brought against them by Mohammed Hijab. Hosted by William Moore and Lara Prendergast. Produced by Patrick Gibbons.
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus," the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost," Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. "It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day." John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard," she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
North Wales Chronicle
2 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Trump could meet Putin as soon as next week, White House official says
The official cautioned that a meeting has not been scheduled yet and no location has been determined. The official was not authorised to speak publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss internal plans. The White House said Mr Trump was also open to a meeting with both Mr Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. A meeting between Mr Putin and Mr Trump would be their first since Mr Trump returned to office this year. It would be a significant milestone in the three-year-old war, though there is no promise such a meeting would lead to the end of the fighting since Russia and Ukraine remain far apart on their demands. News of a potential meeting with Mr Putin, which was first reported by The New York Times, came hours after Mr Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff met Mr Putin in Moscow. Mr Trump had posted earlier on Truth Social that Mr Witkoff 'had a highly productive meeting' with Mr Putin in which 'great progress was made'. It was not immediately clear if Mr Putin or Mr Zelensky had agreed to any meetings with Mr Trump. Mr Zelensky has been willing to meet face-to-face with Mr Putin to end the conflict, but Russia has repeatedly rejected the idea. Mr Trump has met Mr Zelensky several times this year, including a contentious February meeting in Washington. Though he has not yet met Mr Putin this year, Mr Trump met with him five times during his first term. Mr Trump said earlier on Wednesday that he updated America's allies in Europe and that they will work toward an end to the Russia-Ukraine war 'in the days and weeks to come'. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said: 'The Russians expressed their desire to meet with President Trump, and the President is open to meeting with both President Putin and President Zelensky.' Her statement did not address the potential timing of any meeting. Mr Witkoff met Mr Putin days before the White House's deadline for Russia to reach a peace deal with Ukraine or potentially face severe economic penalties that could also hit countries buying its oil. The meeting between Mr Putin and Mr Witkoff lasted about three hours, the Kremlin said. Mr Putin's foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov said Mr Putin and Mr Witkoff had a 'useful and constructive conversation' that focused on the Ukrainian crisis and, in a nod toward improving relations between Washington and Moscow, 'prospects for possible development of strategic co-operation' between the United States and Russia.
