Trump uses press conference with Starmer to boost his golfing business
The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, looked on in apparent discomfort during Monday's scheduled joint press conference as Trump answered a question initially pitched about the expense of refurbishing the Federal Reserve's historic building with a lengthy detour about the maintenance on his luxury golfing resort.
Praising the 'great craftsmen' of Ayrshire, on Scotland's west coast, he described spending 'probably $100m [£74m]' on the hotel: 'We did a very great job. You see how beautiful it is?
'We had ceilings that were in bad shape. They were falling down. It was very old. It wasn't properly maintained. Now it's brand new and beautiful, and we saved everything. If you look outside, it's equally opulent and beautiful.'
With Trump's use of this visit to further his business interests already in the spotlight, Scotland's first minister, John Swinney, faced significant criticism after announcing that his government was in talks to provide £180,000 of public funding for the Aberdeenshire resort as it hosts the 2025 Nexo championship on the DP World Tour next month.
The US president earlier used his trip to repeat his call for the Open Championship to return to Turnberry, declaring his course 'the best resort in the world'.
Asked about the Open at Monday's joint press conference, Starmer said 'the decision on the Open is not a decision for me' but was swift to praise Turnberry as 'absolutely magnificent, both inside and out'.
Starmer's comments came after the Guardian revealed that senior Whitehall officials had asked golf bosses whether they could host the 2028 Open at Turnberry after Trump's repeated requests.
US ethics experts later said doing so could break the US constitution's emoluments clause, which prohibits federal officials from accepting benefits from foreign or state governments without congressional approval.
Swinney has refused to confirm the cost of policing Trump's visit, saying he remains in discussion with the UK government, but many critics have questioned why – as one Aberdeenshire protester put it on Monday – 'our taxes are paying for his holiday'.
Leading a hundred-strong protest at Trump's imminent arrival at his Menie resort in the nearby village of Balmedie, Alena Ivanova of the Stop Trump Coalition Scotland said: 'It was very clear from the beginning that this trip was about Trump benefiting himself.'
She also urged people to 'consider the reality' of Trump's business interests in Aberdeenshire.
The Menie resort was built after a bitter and protracted dispute with local people and environmentalists, who fought to save the rare sand dunes and their own dwellings which Trump declared an eyesore. When Trump eventually won planning permission he promised a £1bn coastal resort including expansive courses, luxury housing and high-rise timeshare flats – promises that many locals point out have yet to be fulfilled.
Ivanova said: 'Trump was supposed to build a £1 billion development with accommodation for local people. There were supposed to be a thousand jobs, so far there have barely been a hundred.'
'The Scottish government was hoodwinked into agreeing proposals that were previously turned down by the local council and the promises have not materialised.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Home Office tried to silence Robert Jenrick after small boat terror claims
The Home Office tried to silence Robert Jenrick after he said terror suspects had arrived in Britain on small boats. In an article for The Telegraph last year, Mr Jenrick, the former immigration minister, claimed that individuals linked to Islamic State had 'waltzed right in' to Britain across the Channel. It can now be revealed that a fortnight later, the Home Office's most senior civil servant reprimanded him over the disclosure. Sir Matthew Rycroft, the department's then permanent secretary, wrote to Mr Jenrick to tell him the information 'should not have been made public' and warned him against 'any further disclosure' of sensitive information from his time in government. On Saturday, critics said the move showed that the Government was trying to 'suppress' concerns about the security implications of mass migration. During his spell as immigration minister between October 2022 and December 2023, Mr Jenrick would have had access to sensitive information and security briefings, including about migrants crossing the Channel. The Home Office has neither confirmed nor denied the veracity of Mr Jenrick's claims and is understood to have had concerns that they could undermine national security. In his letter, Sir Matthew argued that the former immigration minister was bound by rules that prohibit the disclosure of sensitive information, including the ministerial code and the Official Secrets Act. Sir Matthew is also understood to have confirmed that Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, was personally aware that he was issuing the reprimand. The revelation comes amid wider concerns about the Government's attitude towards free speech, especially on contentious topics such as migration. This week it emerged that a secretive Whitehall 'spy' unit has been used to target social media posts criticising migrant hotels and 'two-tier policing'. That prompted the White House to say it was monitoring the situation surrounding freedom of expression in the UK 'closely and with great concern'. Allies of Mr Jenrick expressed concern that the Home Office was trying to deter him from speaking out on security concerns around migration. Bradley Thomas, the Tory MP for Bromsgrove, said: 'Any attempt by the Home Office to suppress news of such significant national security importance is a disgrace. 'Robert Jenrick resigned from the Home Office on a point of principle and he has been clear that mass migration has not been good for our country. 'Robert's principled stance has seen him consistently challenge the failings of the immigration system to keep our country secure and prosperous.' He said that Ms Cooper's 'implicit awareness' that the reprimand was being issued was 'a dereliction of her duty to the British people'. Lewis Cocking, the Tory MP for Broxbourne, said that the warning to Mr Jenrick represented 'political overreach from the Civil Service'. 'They shouldn't be telling an elected Member of Parliament what they should or shouldn't be saying about illegal immigration,' he said. 'It's just another example of why we need a total overhaul of the Civil Service, to get them back working in the interests of ordinary British people. 'Labour Ministers have failed to give me clear answers on how many small boat arrivals fail criminality checks, and this suggests they are working with civil servants to keep the reality of the situation hidden from the public.' Ministerial code Former ministers continue to be bound by the ministerial code, which sets out the standards for their conduct, after they have left office. Mr Jenrick is also on the Privy Council, which advises the sovereign on matters of state, and whose members are subject to extra confidentiality obligations. It is understood that it is not unusual for officials to remind both current and former ministers of their responsibilities under those rules. Mr Jenrick declined to comment. The news comes as Labour is under growing pressure over its handling of the small boats crisis, with the number of crossings this year having already topped 25,000. Officials were forced to send migrants to a controversial overflow hotel in Canary Wharf on Saturday after almost 900 arrived on Wednesday.
The Guardian
21 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Federal agency opens inquiry into ex-special counsel Jack Smith over Trump investigations
The US office of special counsel, an independent federal agency, confirmed to NBC News on Saturday that it is investigating former Department of Justice prosecutor Jack Smith for possible violations of the Hatch Act. Smith led investigations into Donald Trump's part in January 6 US Capitol riot and alleged mishandling of classified documents. The confirmation of an investigation comes after Arkansas senator Tom Cotton, a Republican, requested last week that Smith, 56, be investigated for 'unprecedented interference in the 2024 election'. The Hatch Act, a federal law passed in 1939, limits certain political activities of federal employees. Trump, along with other prominent Republican lawmakers, have argued that Smith's investigations into Trump amounted to illegal political activity. Smith was appointed as special counsel by then attorney general Merrick Garland in 2022 – three days after Trump announced his bid for a second term – to investigate potential interference with the 2020 election and the handling of classified documents. However, the US office of special counsel, the federal agency investigating Smith, is different from the type of justice department-appointed special counsel position that was held by Smith. As an independent federal agency, it lacks the power to bring criminal charges, but can instead seek disciplinary action for a federal government employee or refer its findings to the justice department for investigation. In a series of social media posts on Wednesday, Cotton said that Smith's legal actions 'were nothing more than a tool for the Biden and Harris campaigns. This isn't just unethical, it is very likely illegal campaign activity from a public office.' Cotton said Smith 'pushed for an out-of-the-ordinary, rushed trial for President Trump, with jury selection to begin just two weeks before the Iowa caucuses. No other case of this magnitude and complexity would come to trial this quickly.' Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Smith ultimately brought two criminal indictments against Trump in 2023 but resigned in January this year before either came to trial. His resignation came soon after the justice department asked a federal appeals court to reverse a judge's order, blocking the release of his investigative report focused on Trump's alleged efforts to undo the 2020 presidential election. A second Smith-authored report, into Trump's handling of classified documents, was also blocked from publication.
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump calls nuclear bluff of Russia's hawk-in-chief
Normally, when the US acts against Russia, Vladimir Putin is quick to respond in kind: sanction for sanction, travel ban for travel ban, expulsion for expulsion. 'Proportional reciprocation' and 'symmetrical response' are staples of the Kremlin lexicon, usually accompanied by howls of outrage, denouncing Washington's provocations. Yet since Donald Trump ordered two nuclear submarines to steam towards Russia on Friday – an unusually dramatic gesture for any US president and one that would typically signal a grave geopolitical crisis – Putin has been uncharacteristically silent. Were Putin to follow his own doctrines of reciprocity, Russian submarines would now be heading towards the United States and the world would be holding its breath. Instead, he has recognised the obvious: Mr Trump's move is more about theatre than altering the US nuclear posture. The president is playing a game all too familiar to the Russians. The Kremlin has been bandying about nuclear threats since even before Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, with none more loud than Dmitry Medvedev, Putin's clownish sidekick and chief social media warrior. This week, Mr Medvedev, who was Russia's president from 2008 to 2012 and prime minister from 2012 to 2020, called the latest US deadline for Moscow to accept ceasefire talks a 'step towards war', and warned Mr Trump that Russia possessed nuclear strike capabilities of last resort. It was this war of words that prompted Mr Trump to order nuclear submarines closer to Russia. In doing so, he has essentially called Russia's bluff and may well feel vindicated by the Kremlin's silence. The outrage instead came from pro-Kremlin military commentators in the Russian media, with one accusing Mr Trump of 'throwing a temper tantrum' while another dismissed the submarine deployment as 'meaningless blather'. But by swatting away Mr Medvedev's threats, the US president has given him a relevance he rarely enjoys – for all his mouthiness – either at home or abroad. Hailed by European optimists as a pro-Western reformer when he took over as president from Putin in 2008, Mr Medvedev styled himself as a tech-loving moderniser and defender of civil liberties In reality, he was never the champion of Russia's Western-oriented middle class that he pretended to be. He proved instead to be a mere placeholder while he helped Putin perform a constitutional sleight of hand that reset the clock on his presidency. Ordinary Russians likened the charade to Gogol's play The Government Inspector, in which a fraudster impersonates a powerful official only for the real inspector to appear in the final scene. Cynical though it was, most Russians accepted the ruse. Since Putin's return, Mr Medvedev has been sidelined, seeking relevance from the periphery by turning himself into an ever more bombastic caricature of his former self – one even Russians struggle to take seriously. Last year, The Insider, an anti-Kremlin investigative site, reported that Mr Medvedev's most 'unhinged' social media posts often appeared shortly after deliveries from his Tuscan vineyard arrived at his Moscow address. Rumours of Mr Medvedev's drinking have swirled for over a decade, growing louder as his fulminations against the 'bastards and degenerates' in Kyiv have intensified and footage emerged of him nodding off at a series of official events. Alcohol might explain part of his transformation from a Western-courting politician to someone who now denounces Western leaders as a 'pack of grunting pigs'. But it is more likely that he simply craves attention – and Mr Trump has just given it to him, even if the US president describes him as a 'failed' has-been. The real target of the submarine manoeuvre is almost certainly Putin himself – a man Mr Trump admires but has grown frustrated with because of his refusal to make concessions on Ukraine. Matters are coming to a head, with Mr Trump vowing to impose sanctions on Russia and tariffs on countries buying its energy unless Moscow agrees to a ceasefire by Aug 8. So far, Putin has remained unmoved, seemingly calculating that Washington will retreat from secondary tariffs, which would hurt Russia's energy-dependent economy but also carry significant diplomatic costs for Mr Trump. With time running out ahead of the real showdown, the submarine move should be seen as an attempt to ratchet up pressure on Putin. In that light, the Kremlin's silence looks less like a triumph for the US president than evidence that the Russian leader has not blinked – yet.
