Trade on agenda as Trump lands in Scotland for diplomacy and golf
The president, whose mother was born in Scotland, will split his time between two seaside golf courses bearing his name, in Turnberry on the southwestern coast and Aberdeen in the northeast.
Air Force One, carrying the president and White House staff, touched down at Prestwick Airport near Glasgow shortly before 8:30 pm (1930 GMT).
Police officers lined surrounding streets and several hundred curious Scots came out hoping for a glimpse of the US leader as he made his way to Turnberry.
Trump has no public events scheduled for Saturday and is expected to play golf at his picturesque resort, before meeting EU chief Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday for trade talks.
Trump is also due to meet UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer during the trip.
"We're going to do a little celebrating together, because we got along very well," Trump told reporters as he left the White House Friday, calling Starmer "a good guy" doing "a very good job".
He said they would discuss "fine tuning" the bilateral trade deal struck in May, and would "maybe even improve it".
But the unpredictable American leader appeared unwilling to cede to a UK request for reduced steel and aluminium tariffs.
Trump has exempted British exports from blanket 50 percent tariffs on both metals, but the fate of that carve-out remains unclear.
"If I do it for one, I have to do it for all," Trump told reporters, when asked if he had any "wiggle room" for the UK on the issue.
The international outcry over the conflict in Gaza may also be on the agenda, as Starmer faces growing pressure to follow French President Emmanuel Macron and announce that Britain will also recognise a Palestinian state.
Trump is due to return to the UK in September for a state visit -- his second -- at the invitation of King Charles III, which promises to be lavish.
During a 2023 visit, Trump said he felt at home in Scotland, where his mother Mary Anne MacLeod grew up on the remote Isle of Lewis before emigrating to the United States at age 18.
"He's original, he does things the way he wants to. I think a lot of our politicians could take a good leaf out of his book," 45-year-old Trump fan Lisa Hart told AFP as she waited to see his plane touch down.
But the affection between Trump and Scotland is not always mutual.
Residents, environmentalists and elected officials have voiced discontent over the Trump family's construction of a new golf course, which he is expected to open before he departs the UK on Tuesday.
Police Scotland, which is bracing for mass protests in Edinburgh and Aberdeen as well as close to Trump's golf courses, have said there will be a "significant operation across the country over many days".
Scottish First Minister John Swinney, who will also meet Trump during the visit, said the nation "shares a strong friendship with the United States that goes back centuries".
Trump has also stepped into the sensitive debate in the UK about green energy and reaching net zero, with Aberdeen being the heart of Scotland's oil industry.
In May, he wrote on his Truth Social platform that the UK should "stop with the costly and unsightly windmills" as he urged incentivising drilling for oil in the North Sea.
The trip to Scotland puts physical distance between Trump and the latest twists in the case of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the wealthy financier accused of sex trafficking who died in prison in 2019 before facing trial.
In his heyday, Epstein was friends with Trump and others in the New York jet-set, but the president is now facing backlash from his own MAGA supporters who demand access to the Epstein case files.
Many support a conspiracy theory under which "deep state" elites protected rich and famous people who took part in an Epstein sex ring. But Trump is urging his supporters to move on from the case.
The Wall Street Journal, which published an article detailing longstanding links between Trump and the sex offender, is being punished by the White House.
Its reporting team plans to travel to Scotland on their own and join the White House press pool. But it has now been denied a seat on Air Force One for the flight back home.
While Trump's family has undertaken many development projects worldwide, the president no longer legally controls the family holdings.
But opponents and watchdog groups have accused him of having many conflicts of interest and using his position as US president to promote private family investments, especially abroad.
aue-jkb-jj-pdh/dc
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
6 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Russia hints at deploying mid-range missiles after ending key nuclear treaty with US
Russia on Tuesday suggested it could deploy intermediate-range missiles after ending a self-imposed moratorium on producing or deploying the weapons, which were banned for decades under a Cold War treaty with the United States. Russia has also accused the United States of sending the systems to the Philippines and Australia for drills.(AFP) Washington and Moscow had prohibited missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometres (300-3,400 miles) under the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. But US President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal during his first term in 2019, accusing Russia of failing to comply. The Kremlin said at the time it would continue to abide by a moratorium if the United States did not deploy missiles within striking distance of Russia. Russia's foreign ministry said Monday it was ending the self-imposed restrictions, with the Kremlin hinting on Tuesday that Moscow could soon deploy the previously-banned missiles. Also Read | Russia slams Trump's threat against India: 'Can't force countries to choose trade partners' "There are no longer any restrictions in Russia in this regard. Russia no longer considers itself limited in any way," President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters. Moscow was "entitled, if necessary, to take appropriate measures" on the deployment of the missiles, he said, adding that there would be no public announcement if Russia decided to station the missiles. Putin said last year Russia should start producing mid-range missiles -- capable of carrying nuclear warheads -- after the United States sent some launch systems to Denmark for training exercises. Russia has also accused the United States of sending the systems to the Philippines and Australia for drills. "The United States and its allies have not only openly outlined plans to deploy American land-based INF missiles in various regions, but have also already made significant progress in the practical implementation of their intentions," Russia's foreign ministry said in a statement. The move comes after Trump announced the deployment of two nuclear submarines "in the region" amid an online row with Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's former president. Medvedev on Monday said Russia's foes should be on standby. "This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps," he said in his first social media post since the row with Trump erupted.
Indian Express
6 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Was Hiroshima a show of strength meant to shape future order?
Every year on August 6, people across the world remember Hiroshima. Ceremonies are held and flowers are laid. The day passes with speeches, moments of silence, and renewed calls for a world without nuclear weapons. But beneath these rituals lies a deeper discomfort that many prefer not to talk about. Hiroshima was not only a tragedy. It was also a turning point. It showed what power looks like when it is stripped of all limits. The bombing of Hiroshima, followed by Nagasaki three days later, ended the Second World War. But it also marked the start of a new way of thinking about war, peace, and the use of force. Since that week in August 1945, the world has not been the same. Many say the nuclear age brought stability. Others believe it created a world living on the edge. Eighty years have passed. But the questions that the bombings raised have not disappeared. Were they necessary to end the war? Was it a military decision or a political one? What did Hiroshima and Nagasaki really mean for the future of international politics? These are not just moral questions. They are political ones. Much has been written about whether the bombings were necessary. At the time, American leaders said they were needed to force Japan to surrender. Without them, they argued, the war would have dragged on. A land invasion of Japan would have cost thousands of lives. The bomb, they said, saved more lives than it took. But others have questioned this view. Some Japanese cities had already been destroyed by firebombing. Japan's military position was weak. Its navy and air force had been largely wiped out. And some in Japan's leadership were already discussing ways to end the war. So why was the bomb used? One reason lies outside the battlefield. In 1945, the United States was already thinking ahead to the post-war world. The Soviet Union was both an ally and a rival. Dropping the bomb showed not just Japan, but the world, what the United States was capable of. It was a show of strength meant to shape the future order. Power was not only used to end the war. It was used to define who would lead in the years that followed. From the realist perspective in international relations, war is not only about defeating the enemy. It is also a way to send signals of strength. This idea forms the basis of deterrence. Critics argue that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has allowed a small group of countries to decide who can possess the bomb and who cannot. This unequal treatment prompted many to call the current arrangement 'nuclear apartheid'. Constructivism tells us that power in international politics does not operate only through weapons, armies, and threats. It also works through ideas – how states understand themselves and others, and what they believe to be right or necessary. From a realist perspective, war is not only about defeating the enemy. It is also a way to send signals of strength. This idea forms the basis of deterrence. The logic is straightforward. If you have the power to destroy your enemy, they will hesitate to attack. If both sides could destroy each other, neither would risk starting a war. This logic of mutual destruction held for a time. But this kind of peace was built on fear. It depended on leaders always acting rationally. It left little room for error. This thinking shaped the Cold War, drove the nuclear arms race, and continues to influence how countries think about nuclear weapons today. But deterrence comes at a cost. It relies on the threat of mass destruction. It demands that states be willing to kill millions to avoid war. Some realists accept this as necessary. Others see it as morally bankrupt. Yet it still defines the logic of nuclear policy. In the decades after Hiroshima, the nuclear order took shape. The United States, Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China became the five officially recognised nuclear powers. Others like India, Pakistan, and North Korea built their arsenals outside this system. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons, though it has never officially confirmed this. Liberal thinkers argue that rules, institutions, and cooperation can limit the use of force. In the post-war years, efforts were made to build such a system. The United Nations was established, and treaties like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) were introduced to regulate nuclear weapons. Signed in 1968, the NPT sought to manage the growing divide between the nuclear and non-nuclear states. Under the treaty, countries that already had nuclear weapons were expected to disarm gradually. In return, others would refrain from developing them. The treaty also promised access to peaceful nuclear technology. But critics argue that the NPT has preserved the status quo. It has allowed a small group of countries to decide who can possess the bomb and who cannot. These arrangements, though, have helped prevent the usage of nuclear weapons again. But the system is full of contradictions. The promise of disarmament was never fully kept. The nuclear powers did not make serious efforts to disarm. Instead, they upgraded their arsenals with more precise warheads, faster missiles, and better control systems. At the same time, countries without nuclear weapons were expected to follow rules made by those who already have them. If they resisted, they faced diplomatic pressure, sanctions, or even threats of war. Some were accused of violating the rules even when no evidence existed. The system was never based on fairness. This unequal treatment is why many call the current arrangement 'nuclear apartheid'. It requires the world to accept an unequal system, where a few countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, while others are not. Powerful states claim their weapons are safe because they are in 'responsible hands'. But what makes one country more responsible than another? Who decides that? For many in the Global South, these are not new questions. They have watched Western powers expand and modernise their arsenals while warning others not to build theirs. They have seen how treaties are used to restrict some, while others operate with few constraints. The message is clear – the rules are not the same for everyone. Understanding Hiroshima requires more than looking at military strategy. It also requires asking how identity and perception shape the choices states make. This is where constructivist thinking becomes useful. Constructivism tells us that power in international politics does not operate only through weapons, armies, and threats. It also works through ideas – how states understand themselves, how they view others, and what they believe to be right or necessary. This perspective helps us ask a deeper question: why was it possible to bomb Hiroshima? One reason may be that in American wartime propaganda, Japan was often portrayed as alien, cruel, and even less than human. Within such a framing, the bombing could be presented as a necessary act. Scholars have pointed out that this way of thinking drew on older colonial ideas, where the East was imagined as fundamentally different and dangerous – a mindset shaped by what Edward Said called 'Orientalism'. Why was the same decision not made about the other enemy, Germany? We cannot be sure of the answer. But the question itself tells us something important. In international politics, decisions are not made in a vacuum. They are filtered through narratives of civilisation and of 'us' and 'them'. Constructivist thinking helps us see that war is not only a clash of interests. It is also a clash of identities. Who is seen as threatening? Who is seen as civilised? Who is seen as worthy of protection, and whose suffering can be more easily ignored? These ideas influence not just military choices but also how events are remembered later. This is why memory itself becomes political. In Japan, Hiroshima is remembered as an act of cruelty and trauma. In many parts of the world, it is seen as the tragic cost of ending the war. In US policy circles, it is often defended as a strategic necessity. The same event carries different meanings in different places because memory is shaped by identity, power, and politics. Even eight decades later, Hiroshima is not just about the past. It continues to shape how we think about the future – about war, peace, and power. The world is more connected now. But it is also more divided. The world today feels increasingly unstable. Old rivalries are resurfacing. New technologies are making weapons faster, more precise, and harder to defend against. Some countries have openly threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons in regional conflicts. The idea that nuclear weapons must never be used again – the so-called norm of non-use – is under growing strain. Hiroshima was meant to stand as a permanent warning. But the question now is whether that warning still matters. The strategic community often talks about how the world avoided nuclear war during the Cold War. But avoiding disaster is not the same as building peace. The fact that nuclear bombs have not been used again does not mean the world is safe. It only means we have been lucky. We are often told that nuclear weapons have kept the peace. But this peace is built on fear, not trust. And peace built on fear is always fragile. Lasting peace cannot be negotiated by force; it has to be built on trust and a commitment to shared security. We cannot undo what happened in August 1945. But we can choose how to remember it. Not as a triumph of science or strategy, but as a reminder of how easy it is to cross a line – and how hard it is to come back once we do. In many parts of the world, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is seen as the tragic cost of ending the war. However, in US policy circles, it is often defended as a strategic necessity. Comment. Liberal thinkers argue that rules, institutions, and cooperation can limit the use of force. Discuss the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) from the perspective of Liberal Institutionalism. Constructivism argues that power in international politics also works through ideas – how states understand themselves, how they view others, and what they believe to be right or necessary. How do you think constructivist thinking explains the bombing of Hiroshima? Do you think that the bombing of Hiroshima also marked the start of a new way of thinking about war, peace, and the use of force? (The author is a Professor at MMAJ Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Mint
6 minutes ago
- Mint
Tesla to open Delhi showroom soon? Date, location, models — Here's what we know
₹ Elon Musk's EV making company Tesla is all set to open its second showroom after Mumbai, this time in Delhi. According to a report by NDTV, the Tesla Delhi showroom will open later this month. This comes in less than a month of the electric vehicles company opening its first showroom in India, at BKC, Mumbai. According to reports, the Tesla Delhi showroom will be located at Worldmark, Aerocity, close to the New Delhi International Airport. Once open, people across Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) will be able to access the store and buy the coveted EVs. As per the NDTV report, the Tesla Delhi showroom is expected to open on August 11. However, Tesla has not yet confirmed the date. Tesla, the EV maker headed by billionaire Elon Musk, made its grand entry into India on July 15 with imported vehicles. The company launched its Model Y with price starting at ₹ 59.89 lakh while opening its first experience centre in BKC, Mumbai. Tesla, led by American tech billionaire Elon Musk who had in the past cited India's high import tariffs for the company not entering the country earlier, will be importing the Model Y as a completely built unit (CBU), from its Shanghai manufacturing facility in China. The mid-sized electric SUV Model Y, which was once the world's best-selling car, will be offered in India in two variants -- rear-wheel drive with base price at ₹ 59.89 lakh and long-range rear wheel drive at a base price of ₹ 67.89 lakh. The deliveries are slated to start in the third and fourth quarter of 2025, respectively, for the two variants. Initially, registration and delivery started in Delhi, Mumbai, and Gurugram, the company said. However, according to the website, now you can register your car anywhere in India. Through its Tesla Design Studio, customers will be able to customise their Model Y exterior, interior, and even its features, the company said. The Model Y competes with a range of electric luxury cars from German automakers such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Audi.
