Lord Mandelson honoured with tiny plaque by Maga elite
With his legs crossed, and grinning ear to ear, Lord Mandelson was honoured by the Maga elite with a plaque at a restaurant favoured by Trump supporters.
The British ambassador to the US was in a jovial mood as he arrived at Butterworth's to pull back the tiny curtains on a brass plate above his favourite sofa.
The plaque, roughly as long as the Labour peer's index finger, rests above the French-style couch upon which he sprawled during his first visit to the restaurant.
'I do feel that I have finally made it from tribal politician to real diplomat now that I have unveiled the first plaque in my new diplomatic career,' he said, gesturing towards the sign.
'When I came here, I wandered off the streets hungry, not knowing what it was. I thought I might get a nice lobster thermidor if I was lucky. I sprawled out on this sofa and we had a wonderful conversation for a long time.'
After a tumultuous three decades pulling the strings in Westminster, Lord Mandelson has spent the past six months trying to schmooze his way into 'Magaland'.
It has involved a three-pronged charm offensive – endless meetings on the hill, lunches with big businesses and the odd party to prove to the US president's allies that he is a friend.
Many of those allies have been lobbying for the peer's removal since his appointment was announced, due to him once labelling Mr Trump a 'danger to the world'.
Donning a red tie emboldened with butterflies, borrowed from an embassy staffer, Lord Mandelson made his way to the sofa through a small group of hacks and supporters who sipped Hambledon English sparkling wine.
In front of a backdrop of British and American bunting, he said he felt 'really chuffed by the ambassador's sofa', which is where he first met Raheem Kassam, a British Right-winger and the co-owner of the restaurant.
'In deeply partisan-charged environments, it is incumbent upon those who believe in putting Britain's best foot forward to lock arms,' said Mr Kassam, the National Pulse editor and an ally of the president.
'Washington is a cut-throat city, but if you want to represent the country in a serious diplomatic way, you have to reach out to all sides.'
Like many who have dined in Butterworth's, the ambassador wasted no time digging into the restaurant's famous French fries, which are fried in beef tallow.
The nouveau French restaurant has quickly emerged as the destination du jour for Republican elites in Washington, and for good reason. Only Mr Trump's breakneck takeover of the capital itself has matched the booming popularity of this Maga haven.
Then there is the food. Glowing reviews in the Washington Post and the New York Times magazine, both of which should be ideological foes, means the restaurant is already taking Christmas bookings.
The chic dining room on Capitol Hill, which opened in October, is the creation of several investors including Alex Butterworth, the senior counsel for Uber.
While his name appears above the door, it is Mr Kassam, another investor, who has drawn in clientele including Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, and Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state.
'Although we don't have identical politics, we are familiar with masters of the same drivers that brought our respective figures to power – President Trump in your case and Keir Starmer in mine,' Lord Mandelson said, smiling to Mr Kassam.
'I feel that over centuries now, British diplomats here in the United States have been creating coalitions that support the special relationship. I just think what you have created here at Butterworth's is fairly remarkable.
'You've brought the best of British gastro pub food and planted it down here on Capitol Hill. I feel you've brought the special relationship up to a new higher level.'
The new climate in Washington is one even the most experienced of diplomats have struggled to navigate. Embassies across the city have resorted to throwing their own parties in the hopes White House officials and staffers alike will venture through their doors.
It is an environment even Lord Mandelson, one of the wiliest of political operators, admits has been difficult to crack.
'It's complicated, it's challenging, it's unpredictable, and changes day by day. Indeed, quite often it changes during the time,' he said, appearing to reference the explosive fallout between Elon Musk and Donald Trump.
Mr Kassam, who was sceptical of Lord Mandelson's appointment, said it was important to show 'Brits back home that we can actually work together in His Majesty's interest'.
'Despite my historic political differences with Lord Mandelson, I'm delighted to help him help Britain, and we will endeavour to vigorously pursue that cause with rugged prejudice,' he added.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
3 minutes ago
- UPI
In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director
June 9 (UPI) -- Hundreds of scientists via the National Institute of Health signed a published letter in protest to NIH leadership and recent cuts by the Trump administration. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political moment over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources," more than 300 scientists wrote Monday to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya in a so-called "Bethesda Declaration" published by Stand Up For Science in rebuke to Trump administration research funding cuts and staff layoffs. They added in the letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress overseeing NIH that they "dissent" to Trump's policies that "undermine" the NIH mission, "waste" public resources and harm "the health of Americans and people across the globe." In the open letter, they said the current endeavor to "Make America Healthy Again" referred to "some undefined time in the past." "Keeping NIH at the forefront of biomedical research requires our stalwart commitment to continuous improvement," the letter's writers said, adding that the life-and-death nature of NIH work "demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted." According to the letter, the Trump administration terminated at least 2,100 NIH research grants since January, totaling around $9.5 billion and contracts representing some $2.6 billion in new research. "We urge you as NIH Director to restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue," the letter added in part. "This undercuts long-standing NIH policies designed to maximize return on investment by working with grantees to address concerns and complete studies," it said. It further accused the White House of creating a "culture of fear and suppression" among NIH researchers. Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor and health researcher, called the agency the "crown jewel of American biomedical sciences" and said he had the "utmost respect" for its scientists and mission during his confirmation hearing in March. On Tuesday, Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify before the Senate's Appropriations Committee on Trump's 2026 NIH budget proposal which seeks to cut roughly 40% of NIH's $48 billion budget. "This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research," the scientists penned to Bhattacharya. The letter goes on to characterize it as "dissent" from Trump administration policy, quoting Bhattacharya during his confirmation as saying "dissent is the very essence of science." "Standing up in this way is a risk, but I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up," says Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe," Norton said in a statement, adding that if others don't speak up, "we allow our government to curtail free speech, a fundamental American value."
Associated Press
4 minutes ago
- Associated Press
How unusual is it for the National Guard to come to LA? Here's what to know about the city's history
President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests is the latest in a long history of U.S. elected officials sending troops in hopes of thwarting unrest connected to civil rights protests. National Guard troops are typically deployed for a variety of emergencies and natural disasters with the permission of governors in responding states, but Trump, a Republican, sent about 1,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles despite the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats. Confrontations began Friday when dozens of protesters gathered outside a federal detention center demanding the release of more than 40 people arrested by federal immigration authorities across Los Angeles, as part of Trump's mass deportation campaign. Trump said that federalizing the troops on Saturday was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California. Newsom said Trump's recent decision was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Some of the previous National Guard deployments have preserved peace amid violent crackdowns from local law enforcement or threats from vigilantes, but sometimes they have intensified tensions among people who were protesting for civil rights or racial equality. On rare occasion, presidents have invoked an 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act, which is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. Other times they relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances, which is what Trump did on Saturday. Here is a look at some of the most notable deployments: George Floyd protests in Los Angeles in 2020 Almost five years ago, Newsom deployed approximately 8,000 National Guard troops to quell protests over racial injustice inspired by the death of George Floyd in Minnesota. Well over half of the troops deployed in California were sent to Los Angeles County, where police arrested more than 3,000 people. City officials at the time, including then-Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, supported Newsom's decision. Rodney King protests in 1992 Some have compared Trump's decision on Saturday to George H.W. Bush's use of the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992, after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. In just six days the protests became one of the deadliest race riots in American history, with 63 people dying, nine of whom were killed by police. Syreeta Danley, a teacher from South Central Los Angeles, said she vividly remembers as a teen seeing black smoke from her porch during the 1992 uprisings. Danley said that at the time it seemed like law enforcement cared more about property damage affecting wealthier neighborhoods than the misconduct that precipitated the unrest. She said some people in her neighborhood were still more afraid of the police than the National Guard because once the troops left, local police 'had the green light to continue brutalizing people.' The National Guard can enforce curfews like they did in 1992, but that won't stop people from showing up to protest, Danley said. 'I have lived long enough to know that people will push back, and I'm here for it,' Danley said. Watts protests in 1965 There were deadly protests in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles in 1965 in response to pent-up anger over an abusive police force and lack of resources for the community. Over 30 people were killed — two-thirds of whom were shot by police or National Guard troops. Many say the neighborhood has never fully recovered from fires that leveled hundreds of buildings. Integration protests in the 1950-1960s In 1956, the governor of Tennessee called the state's troops to help enforce integration in Clinton, Tennessee, after white supremacists violently resisted federal orders to desegregate. President Dwight Eisenhower called the Arkansas National Guard and the 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army in 1957 to escort nine Black students as they integrated a previously white-only school. A few years later, the Maryland National Guard remained in the small town of Cambridge for two years after Maryland's Democratic Gov. J Millard Tawes in 1963 called in troops to mediate violent clashes between white mobs and Black protesters demanding desegregation. Selma, Alabama, voting rights protest in 1965 National Guard troops played a pivotal role in the march often credited with pressuring the passage of Voting Rights Act of 1965, when nonviolent protesters — including the late congressman John Lewis — calling for the right to vote were brutally assaulted by Alabama State Troopers in Selma, Alabama, in 1965. Two weeks later, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson sent National Guard troops to escort thousands of protesters along the 50-mile (81-kilometer) march to the state Capitol. Johnson's decision was at odds with then-Gov. George Wallace who staunchly supported segregation. ___ Riddle is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Time Magazine
6 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?
President Donald Trump's mobilization of the National Guard to quell immigration-related protests in Los Angeles marks a rare— and controversial —exercise of presidential power. Trump's decision to make the deployment against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom is especially unusual. The move marks the first time in 60 years that a President has called up National Guard troops to a state without a request from its governor. Newsom confirmed he didn't ask for the mobilization, saying in a post on X on Sunday that he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind what he called an 'unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command.' The Democratic governor called the move 'a serious breach of state sovereignty,' and told MSNBC that he plans to file a lawsuit against the Administration. The decision to activate the National Guard came as thousands of demonstrators across Los Angeles county over the weekend protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids that targeted undocumented immigrants. While the protests had been largely peaceful, some of the demonstrations escalated: Rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown, cars were vandalized, and law enforcement officials deployed crowd control agents including tear gas, 'flash bang' grenades, and rubber bullets. Though National Guard troops are typically controlled by state governors, the President does have the authority to deploy them in certain circumstances, including in response to civil unrest. It's a power that has existed in some form almost as long as the country itself, dating back to 1792, though it has been used only sparingly in the centuries since. The deployment of the National Guard in those instances has usually come at the request of state officials—thought not always. The last time a President mobilized the troops without the governor's consent was in 1965, when then-President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed National Guard troops to Alabama, without a request from the state's governor, in order to protect civil rights activists who were marching from Selma to Montgomery, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Alabama's governor at the time, Democrat George Wallace, didn't want to use state funds to protect the demonstrators. Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the President to deploy military forces domestically to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or in certain other situations. The Insurrection Act 'is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities,' according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992, when then-President George H.W. Bush called up National Guard troops to quell riots in Los Angeles that were sparked by the acquittal of the four white police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King, an unarmed Black man. Then-California Gov. Pete Wilson had requested the federal aid. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, but he didn't rule out the possibility of doing so in the future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' Trump said, responding to a reporter's question about whether he was prepared to invoke the law. 'We're not going to let them get away with it.' To mobilize the National Guard troops this weekend, he instead invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows for the federal deployment of National Guard forces in limited circumstances, including if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' The provision states that the President may call the troops 'in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' But it also states, 'Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.' The Trump Administration's move sparked controversy, with many Democratic politicians and advocacy organizations blasting the decision. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in a post on X that deploying National Guard troops 'over the objection of California leaders is an abuse of power and a dangerous escalation.' 'It's what you would see in authoritarian states and it must stop,' she continued. Legal experts also expressed concern over the Trump Administration's actions. 'For the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling,' Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told the New York Times. Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University Law Center professor specializing in military justice and national security law, called the move 'alarming' in a post on his website, saying there is a possibility that putting federal authorities on the ground 'will only raise the risk of escalating violence' and that the National Guard's mobilization could be intended as a 'precursor' to justify a more aggressive deployment in the future if it fails. 'The law may well allow President Trump to do what he did Saturday night,' Vladeck wrote. 'But just because something is legal does not mean that it is wise—for the present or future of our Republic.'
