Buckingham Palace: US President Trump to make second state visit in September
Royal Communications on Monday disclosed that Trump, accompanied by First Lady Melania Trump, "has accepted an invitation from His Majesty The King to pay a State Visit to the United Kingdom from 17 September to 19 September 2025."
It said, "His Majesty The King will host The President and Mrs. Trump at Windsor Castle."
It also announced that "further details of the programme will be announced in due course."
When Trump met Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the White House in February, Starmer handed Trump a letter from the king inviting him to the UK as a state guest. Trump accepted on the spot.
The invitation comes amid good relations between the US and Britain. Trump and Starmer last month formally signed a trade agreement on the US administration's tariffs.
Trump was invited by the late Queen Elizabeth for his first visit in 2019, during his first term in office. It is rare for Britain to host a foreign leader twice as a state guest.
During Trump's first state visit, some people took to the streets to protest. It remains to be seen how his second state visit will be received.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
2 hours ago
Energy from the North? Japan Eyes the Promise and Perils of Alaskan Gas Investment
Among the barrage of executive orders that US President Donald Trump issued upon taking office in January 2025 is one titled Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, which proclaims the need to tap the state's natural resources, including liquefied natural gas, to rein in inflation, create jobs, correct trade imbalances, boost America's global clout, and counter moves by foreign powers to weaponize energy supplies. In conjunction with this policy, the Trump administration is urging Japan—under pressure from tough tariff negotiations—to invest in the Alaska LNG project, a costly plan to pipe gas across the state, liquefy it, and ship it to East Asian countries. Liquefied natural gas has a long history in Alaska. Japan's very first imports of LNG, back in 1969, were shipped from the state. But apart from the name, the Alaska LNG project being pushed by the White House has very little in common with its predecessor. Under the earlier plan, natural gas was extracted from reserves on the Kenai Peninsula on the south coast of Alaska, where it was processed into LNG and loaded onto ships for export. Total capacity was only about 1.5 million tons a year. Beginning in 2015, global LNG prices dropped as supplies increased and demand weakened, and it became increasingly difficult for Alaska to compete with other suppliers. In 2017, Alaska LNG's operations were shut down. The new Alaska LNG development project proposes to tap the North Slope gas fields on the Arctic Ocean coast in northern Alaska. A 1,300-kilometer trans-Alaska pipeline would transport the gas all the way down to the Kenai Peninsula, where chilling facilities would produce up to 20 million tons of LNG annually. Alaska Gasline Development Corp. (AGDC), the independent public corporation heading up the project (including construction of a natural-gas pipeline and liquefaction plant) hopes to begin shipping LNG around 2030. Alaska depends heavily on locally extracted natural gas for its own heating and industrial purposes, and the Kenai Peninsula's gas reserves have been dwindling, with supplies expected to run out sometime in the mid-2030s. For the state, therefore, development of the North Slope fields promises a new source of affordable energy for Alaskans, as well as significant revenue from exports. LNG Demand in East Asia In February 2025, the Japanese government released its Seventh Strategic Energy Plan, which calculates the outlook for energy supply and demand in 2040. Alongside its basic energy outlook, the plan incorporates an alternative scenario in which the official targets for adoption of nonfossil fuels (such as renewable energy and hydrogen) are not met. If the goals are achieved, demand for LNG in fiscal 2040 is expected to drop from the current level of 66 million tons (fiscal 2022) to somewhere between 54 million and 60 million tons. If the country falls short of the targets, though, it will need an estimated 74 million tons of LNG. In short, a certain level of demand for LNG is expected to persist through 2040. In the interim, the long-term contracts under which Japanese utilities and trading companies purchase LNG are coming up for renewal. New contracts will have to be signed to ensure a stable energy supply farther down the road, and Alaska LNG is one potential supplier. South Korea and Taiwan are in a similar position. Much like Japan, South Korea can only guess at the amount of energy renewables will be able to supply over the next 10 or 20 years. Taiwan, which shut down its last operating nuclear power plant in May this year, has adopted an energy strategy that calls for converting coal-fired plants to natural gas. All three countries have a clear need for LNG going forward, presenting a business opportunity for Alaska LNG. Geographical Merits Clearly, Alaska LNG enjoys the Trump administration's enthusiastic backing, but what are the relative benefits for Japan and its neighbors? The biggest advantage is probably geographical proximity. Japan already imports LNG from the United States, but those shipments originate in the Gulf of Mexico. The shortest route, through the Panama Canal, is about 17,000 kilometers. Moreover, because congestion has made it difficult for LNG tankers to transit the canal, the preferred route nowadays is around the Cape of Good Hope, a 29,000-kilometer trip. The southern coast of Alaska, by contrast, is only about 6,000 kilometers from Japan. The shorter distance and shipping time would mean lower transportation costs and more flexible delivery schedules. Shipping from Alaska is also attractive from the standpoint of safety of navigation. LNG from Qatar typically passes through the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca before traveling north through the South China Sea. The Strait of Hormuz poses safety risks whenever the situation in the Middle East is unstable, and piracy continues to be an issue in the Strait of Malacca. China's increasingly assertive activity in the South China Sea, most of which it claims as its own territory, makes navigation problematic there. Shipping LNG from Alaska is a way of avoiding these safety risks. Cost Questions Remain But the Alaska LNG plan raises some serious questions centered on costs and lead time. Gas from the North Slope is inexpensive in and of itself, but the construction of a new gas treatment plant on the North Slope, a trans-Alaska pipeline, and a liquefaction plant on the Kenai Peninsula would incur enormous costs. An early estimate by the developer put the total expense at about $44 billion, but inflation has pushed up construction costs since then, and the challenges of laying pipeline through permafrost areas could add significantly to the expense. Any final decision must await a detailed, independent analysis, which will doubtless yield a higher price tag. For purposes of comparison, one might note that total investment in the Rio Grande LNG project, now under construction in Brownsville, Texas, is estimated at roughly $20 billion. To be sure, the two projects differ significantly in terms of the scale of construction and the kinds of expenses involved, but the comparison helps put the cost of the Alaska LNG project in perspective. The high initial investment required augments the challenges of financing the project and could also push up the selling price of the LNG thus produced. Bad Timing? The long lead time required for Alaska LNG to launch commercial operations is problematic on several counts. First, it could affect Alaska LNG's ability to compete with other LNG projects targeting Asian markets, including various US ventures, a Canadian project that began shipping LNG from the Pacific Coast in May 2025, and plans to expand production in Qatar. In short, Asian customers have multiple options for investing in and importing natural gas, and they will only choose Alaska LNG if it suits their needs with respect to timing and terms of sale. This is especially true in Japan, where most of the importers are private companies. In South Korea and Taiwan, where public corporations handle the importation of LNG, political considerations may play some role in purchasing decisions, but even so, buyers will have to decide whether the political benefits are worth the additional costs. Second, under the current timeline, Alaska LNG will not begin exporting until after the end of Trump's second term of office in January 2029. We have witnessed firsthand the policy U-turns that can result when a new president from a different party takes control in Washington. The next administration might well resurrect the environmental protections and climate-change policies that Trump has discarded, a shift that could spell trouble for Alaska LNG. Long-term business decisions require a measure of policy predictability, and in this key respect, the United States has become a high-risk country. The third issue with Alaska LNG's long lead time pertains to the target year for achieving net zero carbon emissions. Demand for LNG from Japanese and other East Asian importers is bound to decline sharply as the 2050 target year approaches. A 20-year LNG contract concluded in 2030 will last through 2049. If long-term contracts are needed to secure funding for the future, then it makes sense to begin export operations as soon as possible. Alaska LNG has very little time to spare. A Narrow Window of Opportunity Plans for tapping the North Slope's natural gas resources have been around for decades, but they have stalled repeatedly in the face of financial and political obstacles. Trump's executive order Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential presents an unprecedented opportunity for the Alaska LNG project. But given Trump's term of office and the looming net-zero deadline, the window of opportunity is narrow. Ultimately, speed and cost will determine whether Alaska LNG can tap into the East Asian market. In terms of speed, the project needs to make concrete progress—meaning a final investment decision and initial construction—soon, while the political winds are still favorable. Otherwise, the project will lose momentum, and the market will be snapped up by competing LNG projects. The importance of cost considerations goes without saying. It would be foolish to overrate the value of Alaska LNG solely on the basis of geography. That said, if Alaska LNG can offer its product at a price comparable to that of competitors, then its geographical location becomes a powerful inducement, vastly increasing its chances of claiming a share of the East Asian market. (Originally published in Japanese on July 25, 2025. Banner photo: A liquefied natural gas tanker arrives at Futtsu Power Station in Futtsu, Chiba Prefecture, in February 2023. © Kyodo.)
NHK
8 hours ago
- NHK
Trump threatens sanctions, mulls envoy visit to Russia
US President Donald Trump says he may send special envoy Steve Witkoff to Russia ahead of the August 8 deadline he set for a ceasefire agreement with Ukraine. Speaking to reporters on Sunday, Trump said Witkoff "may be going" on Wednesday or Thursday. He has warned of sanctions if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not agree to a deal, saying "There will be sanctions, but they seem to be pretty good at avoiding sanctions." He added, "We'll see what happens." The sanctions could be applied to imports from countries that buy Russian products. Putin has said he will not agree to a deal unless Moscow's demands are met.
Japan Times
9 hours ago
- Japan Times
Opposition parties fume over U.S. trade deal not being put in writing
Opposition parties, wary of U.S. President Donald Trump's unpredictable diplomacy, criticized Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and Tokyo's chief tariff negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, on Monday for failing to put the U.S.-Japan trade agreement in writing — a step the government fears could delay or even cancel planned tariff reductions. 'This is the Trump administration we're talking about. If we don't issue a written document, (the U.S.) will keep stretching the deal while Japan continues getting ripped off. Doesn't everyone agree?' said Yoshihiko Noda, chief of the main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, during a Lower House budget committee meeting. Noda's remarks came after Japanese officials said no official documentation would be released outlining the trade agreement under which the U.S. will impose a 15% 'reciprocal' tariff on most Japanese goods effective Aug. 7 — up from the current 10% but lower than the 25% the United States threatened to impose — while U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said rates could 'boomerang' back to 25% if 'the president is unhappy' with the deal's implementation. The discrepancies between the two countries' reports — while the U.S. fact sheet says there will be 'over $550 billion in a new Japanese/USA investment,' Japanese government documents say it will provide 'up to $550 billion investments, loans and loan guarantees' — is more reason to issue a joint statement, Noda said. Trump's executive order also lacked details about sectorial tariffs, including those on automobiles — the U.S. had agreed to cut a 25% auto tariff in half, to 12.5%. The total for autos will be 15%, including a 2.5% duty charged independent of Trump tariffs. Ishiba, who has not spoken with Trump since Japan and the U.S. reached a surprise trade deal on July 22 in Washington, agreed with Noda that Trump 'isn't a normal guy' and 'changes the rules' but said that issuing a joint document will not serve the nation's interests and may instead jeopardize the agreement. Akazawa said that a document would have been useful to 'put a pin in it,' but that 'the number one fear is being unable to lower the tariffs anymore' if asking for a written agreement changes Trump's mind about them. The U.K. secured a written agreement with the U.S., but Vietnam, the Philippines, the European Union and South Korea, like Japan, have not. Yuichiro Tamaki, leader of the opposition Democratic Party for the People also took issue with the mismatched interpretations of the trade deal and demanded that Japan at least also release its own fact sheet on the prime minister's official website. Taking an extra jab at Ishiba, Tamaki also asked, 'Until when are you planning to stay on as prime minister?' The question of Ishiba's political fate has been in focus since the Liberal Democratic Party, of which he is the president of, suffered yet another defeat in last month's Upper House election, prompting LDP members and opposition parties to call on him to resign. Ishiba, however, reiterated his conviction to continue his premiership for as long as it takes to see the trade deal's implementation through. 'I need to ensure that businesses don't take on unfair losses. How much longer that will take? I can't say for certain now,' Ishiba replied to Tamaki. Rather than taking issue with the agreement not being in writing, Ryohei Iwatani, Nippon Ishin no Kai's secretary-general, criticized the deal for it being 'protection money' against the U.S. 'The deal uses words like 'investment' and 'loans,' but isn't this simply Japan paying the U.S., like protection money?' Iwatani said, adding that even Howard Lutnick, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, bluntly said Japan 'bought the ability to be down to 15%.' Akazawa, advising Iwatani to 'not believe everything the other country's officials say,' reassured him that the trade deal is meant to build a 'strong supply chain in the U.S. that can benefit both Japan and the U.S.'
