Trump's state visit set for September due Charles' and US leader's busy diaries
Donald Trump is to make a full state visit to the UK this year after Britain's King Charles and the US president's busy diaries mean they are unable to meet informally first over the summer, it is understood.
The Times reported that UK prime minister Sir Keir Starmer has gone against the wishes of Charles by bringing Mr Trump's 'bells and whistles' state visit forward to September.
Advertisement
The newspaper said the Palace had been hoping for a more leisurely approach building towards the state visit, amid concern over Mr Trump's threat to make Canada the US's 51st state.
The then-prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall with US president Donald Trump and his wife Melania in 2019 (Chris Jackson/PA)
Charles, who is King of Canada, suggested in a letter personally delivered to Mr Trump by Mr Starmer in the Oval Office in February that they might meet at Balmoral or Dumfries House Scotland first before the much grander state visit.
But it is understood that, although all options were explored, there were logistical challenges surrounding an informal visit, with complexities in both Charles and Mr Trump's diaries meaning a private meeting was not possible over the course of the summer months.
The diary issues come despite Charles heading to Scotland for his summer break each year, and Mr Trump being expected to visit his new, second golf course in Aberdeenshire when it opens this summer.
Advertisement
US president Donald Trump is presented with a letter from Charles in February suggesting a first meeting and then a state visit (Carl Court/PA)
It is said that the logistical reasons why the private meeting cannot precede the state visit are understood and appreciated by all parties.
Formal planning for the official state visit has now begun.
The Manu Regia, the hand-signed formal invitation from the monarch to Mr Trump for a second state visit, was hand-delivered last week by British representatives from the Washington embassy to the White House.
A Palace aide said: 'His Majesty has known President Trump for many years and looks forward to hosting him and the First Lady later this year.'
Advertisement
US president Donald Trump and Queen Elizabeth II during the state banquet at Buckingham Palace in 2019 (Dominic Lipinski/PA)
The exact dates of Mr Trump's stay will be announced in due course, but September is said to be the most likely.
The politician was already feted with a grand state visit to the UK, hosted by the late Queen at Buckingham Palace in 2019.
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.
But Mr Trump is being treated with an unprecedented second state visit for a US president, this time at Windsor.
Advertisement
The Times suggested Mr Starmer was hoping to prioritise his attempt to curry favour with Mr Trump and capitalise on the president's fascination with the royal family.
Asked if No 10 had overruled Charles over the visit, a Downing Street spokesman said: 'That's untrue. During his visit to the White House in February the Prime Minister was delighted to extend His Majesty the King's invite for a historic second state visit to the president and first lady and the president was pleased to accept.
'Of course the Prime Minister looks forward to welcoming President Trump.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
23 minutes ago
- BBC News
Why Keir Starmer faces a political storm over welfare reforms
Angela Rayner has declared that the government will go ahead with its controversial legislation, aimed at reforming the welfare system, next a well-placed source told us it could still be pulled: "It's a live discussion."Conversations are continuing at the heart of government on the least worst course of action in the face of a significant backbench than 120 Labour backbenchers have signed an amendment calling for the proposals to be scrapped, making an embarrassing defeat for the government are exploring whether some potential rebels can be won over with concessions or whether it's better to avoid next week's vote entirely, and postpone until the suggest the Chancellor Rachel Reeves is "digging in". They fear concessions, if any, would only be offered from the dispatch box on Tuesday if defeat some in government believe this is seen as too much of a high-wire act, and don't want to risk defeat. Even if the reforms stumble through, one leading rebel predicted dire consequences. The subsequent bitterness in Labour's ranks, they suggested, would making it all but impossible for the leadership to handle their own parliamentary landslide election victory was just a year ago, so how could it now be even at the remotest risk of defeat on a flagship policy?Here are a few factors. Ignoring the signals This rebellion has been a long time in ignited the flame of rebellion was the government's own assessment in March that its welfare changes could force 250,000 people – including 50,000 children – into relative poverty. This did not take in to account new measures to get more people in to work, because these have yet to be implemented, but that headline figure made many MPs the government had a problem with party management should have become obvious when backbenchers were called in to meet officials in Downing Street to be briefed on the welfare changes early in March. Some of these usually loyal MPs emerged unhappy. One of them told us: "People won't wear it. The costs of being disabled aren't going down. They can't just force this through like the winter fuel cut."Another said they had made a "heartfelt" plea for a change of bells should possibly have rung when welfare ministers - including Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall - held a series of sessions with concerned backbenchers, and some of the testy exchanges were next milestone on the road to rebellion was in May when 42 Labour MPs wrote to the Guardian pushing for postponement of cuts and a the sirens should have wailed when more than 100 Labour MPs wrote to the government whips last only very small concessions – or "olive branches" as Department of Work and Pensions sources preferred to call them – emerged, discussions began behind the scenes among MPs on drawing up a 'reasoned' (at Westminster, this is a euphemism for 'wrecking') amendment - when dissenters would display their discontent in cabinet minister told the BBC: "Some of those who signed the amendment did so thinking that the Speaker wouldn't select it, but that it would make the strength of feeling clear and bring the government to the negotiating table."But the government hasn't sat down at that table and the cabinet minister believes that if next week's welfare vote goes ahead, "the Speaker would be mad not to select it" - placing the government in danger of defeat. Wrong way round A chunk of blame is being apportioned to the chancellor's fiscal rules – and to the chancellor all Labour MPs believe a 'broken' welfare system needs to be like the £1bn of extra support that Kendall secured for measures such as one-to-one coaching to help unemployed people into work, and a 'right to try a job' without a subsequent loss of benefits if it doesn't work the dissenting MPs wanted this approach to be used first, before most cuts to benefits took place, and they complain that too much of this funding is scheduled for later in the parliament, while the process of restricting Personal Independence Payments will begin in around 18 months. As one rebel put it: "The welfare changes are the wrong way round."Rachel Reeves had promised to stick by her "iron clad" fiscal rules, which mean that debt has to be on a trajectory to fall as a share of national income on a five year help meet these, she pencilled in £5bn of welfare Kendall told the BBC that the welfare reforms didn't start with a spreadsheet, many of her colleagues believe Reeves couldn't make the same MPs felt gave the game away was this: the chancellor found extra cuts at her Spring Statement in March, when the budget watchdog, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, didn't think the numbers added some supporters of the reforms believe that the emotional case for them – getting people off the unemployment 'scrapheap', ending stressful re-assessments for the most vulnerable – were not made soon enough or forcefully minister – who predicts the welfare vote will be postponed – suggested that the jobs of Kendall and the chief whip Sir Alan Campbell were on the line. Asked if Reeves's position could be at risk, the minister said: "Keir will do that in this parliament but it's the last lever he will reach for. He'll sack his advisers at least one more time before it comes to that." Rebel Alliance Opposition to the welfare cuts is genuine and heartfelt among many of the Labour there is an underlying environment that might make conditions ripe for the names of those calling for a include people with front bench experience in opposition who hoped or expected to become ministers – and were overlooked. The names also include people who have direct experience of being on benefits, or of forming welfare policy, but who feel they weren't given their due or properly consulted by the party of them told me: "Party management has been appalling right from the start. Holding meetings isn't the same as listening - they have not listened to us. There has been a lot of frustration."This group of MPs would not have responded well to the prime minister's description of the potential rebels as "noises off" at a press conference on Wednesday. He can expect more noise as a half of those calling for changes are MPs elected for the first time in was supposed to have weeded out troublesome candidates, such as those close to the Jeremy Corbyn leadership, those with rebellious tendencies and dodgy social media histories. Yet the prime minister is facing the biggest rebellion of his what wasn't factored in by those around Sir Keir is that many of the new intake were brought into politics by protests about Conservative welfare policies. As one person involved in drawing up these reforms said, the welfare state is to Labour MPs what Europe was to Conservative according to one veteran MP – who has signalled her own willingness to rebel – some of her fresher colleagues are acting not just on behalf of disabled constituents but themselves. They have been inundated with constituents' complaints, they have small majorities and they want to distance themselves from unpopular policies. Big majority, big problem? Some of the difficulties the government faces may not have come despite the majority - but because of are only so many government jobs to go round. So MPs who believe they are never likely to become ministers are more open to acting independently. When whips or cabinet ministers warn colleagues that they may be killing off hope of a ministerial career if they rebel, the calculation may be that they are unlikely to receive preferment in any while big majorities look impregnable, many MPs aren't feeling very secure. Labour secured lots of seats on a small share of the vote in 2024 - and the more Labour lags behind Reform UK in the polls, the more discipline diminishes. As one minister put it: "This is the new reality of our volatile politics. Welcome to Italy."Some MPs also don't seem to feel personal loyalty to Keir Starmer - they feel that it was the electorate's desire for change rather than their party leadership that was responsible for their elevation to Westminster. Some of them tell me they now feel embarrassed by promising during the election campaign that disabled benefits wouldn't be cut – or accusing the Conservatives of considering withdrawing winter fuel payments when in fact it was their own party that subsequently did so. Resentments have been simmering but now the political temperature is being turned new MP told us: "In the first month, it's very difficult to stand up to your government and feel like you've got a voice, but I think in those intervening months that a lot of us have found that voice."We have found support amongst others. And we do feel confident in saying what we think is right and what is wrong."With a large majority, some backbenchers feel under-used. One MP observed that many welfare rebels had also thrown themselves actively into one side or the other of the assisted dying debate: "They got a taste for anger and organising" - including against fellow Labour MPs. One U-turn deserves another The U-turn on winter fuel – which many backbenchers welcomed – may also have convinced some potential rebels that if enough pressure is applied, the government will far from buying off welfare rebels by that U-turn, they seem to have been consequences of this are making some of their more loyal colleagues shudder. Bad blood is flowing between some of the favoured sons and daughters (in some cases quite literally) of the party hierarchy were ushered in to winnable seats close to the general election by the party didn't have to engage in the jeopardy of a local selection battle. The leadership expected loyalty in return but even a small number of them have baulked at the welfare reforms. One critic bemoaned that they were "parachuted into their safe seats and have already forgotten how they got here". Another MP said: "I'm afraid it shows many in the party just aren't fit for government."And one of the new intake doesn't have much time for indiscipline, either. He told us that he had learned his some of his colleagues were "spineless" and "treacherous".Warming to his theme, he feared the party was retreating to the comfort of its traditional vote-losing ways: "Classic Labour. A year into government and we're already screwing it up." Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's pointless globetrotting proves how irrelevant he is
Sir Keir Starmer clearly finds burnishing his credentials as a statesman on the world stage far more to his liking than dealing with pesky domestic concerns, such as cutting disability benefits and the winter fuel allowance. British prime ministers usually seek solace in endless overseas jamborees once they have first served a lengthy apprenticeship in Downing Street. Tony Blair was well into his third term before taking refuge in foreign junkets as his domestic popularity waned. By contrast, Starmer, who now has the unenviable honour of the lowest net favourability rating on record, has developed the taste for travelling abroad remarkably early in his premiership. Rather than investing effort in rallying support for policies, 'Never-Here Keir' prefers to spend his time hobnobbing with other world leaders. Last week our Prime Minister was missing in action, attending the increasingly irrelevant meeting of G7 leaders in Canada. It was memorable solely for Donald Trump's sensible decision to head for the exit early to attend to the deepening Iran-Israel conflict. Starmer was in The Hague attending the annual get-together of Nato leaders, where he desperately sought to persuade an increasingly sceptical Trump administration that his Government really was committed to spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035. By that date, Starmer's undistinguished term in office will be a distant memory. And the defence of the realm will not have been improved a jot by the investment in rural broadband and national roadworks that Starmer now claims is a vital part of his plan to increase overall defence spending. A more detailed examination of the Government's defence plans – one that our allies in the Pentagon will be studying closely – is that there will be no new money to increase the number of troops available to fight the wars of the future. Starmer's boast at the Nato summit that the UK would meet the alliance's new spending target of 5 per cent of GDP 'to deepen our commitment to Nato' is nothing more than an elaborate Treasury 'smoke and mirrors' exercise. Even the highly publicised decision to buy 12 F-35A stealth fighters, which can carry tactical nuclear weapons, has been taken at the expense of buying more of the F-35B variant used by the Royal Navy's two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers, thereby severely diminishing their war-fighting capabilities. Nor does Starmer's endless globetrotting appear to have had any noticeable bearing on his ability to influence key events, as was evident during the Trump administration's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. While Starmer has an unerring habit of making sure he is photographed next to Trump whenever there is a summit photo op, his ability to bring any influence to bear on the Trump administration's decision-making process is negligible. The first Starmer knew that Trump had given the go-ahead for the bombing raid was when he received a telephone call from the US leader at Chequers, after the B-2 stealth bombers were already in the air. It was merely a courtesy call from Trump, not a consultation with a key ally. The fact that Starmer was completely blindsided by Trump's decision to attack Iran is hardly surprising given that David Lammy, his hapless Foreign Secretary, had returned from meeting Trump administration officials earlier that week insisting there was still a 'window of opportunity' to de-escalate the conflict. The bitter truth is that, for all Starmer attempts to ingratiate himself with world leaders, no one is taking him seriously as a statesman. And this is no wonder given his default response when faced with an international crisis is to indulge in legalistic sophistry and equivocation. Starmer's inability to formulate a clear and coherent response when faced with a global crisis was clearly evident from his handling of the Gaza conflict, when he supported Israel's right to defend itself while at the same time backing the imposition of punitive measures against key members of the Israeli government. The prime minister's leadership failings were again in evidence in the aftermath of the US raid on Iran's infrastructure. While insisting that the UK remained opposed to the ayatollahs acquiring nuclear weapons, Starmer could not bring himself to issue a public declaration of support for Trump's decisive action, which has destroyed any hope the Iranians may have entertained of developing nuclear warheads in the near future. The result is that, for all Starmer's grandstanding at global summits, no one is going to take a politician seriously who is quite content to deceive the outside world about the UK's defence commitments, while at the same time being temperamentally incapable of making his mind up on international issues. Starmer may like to project the image of a global statesman, but the brutal truth is that few world leaders, least of all in Washington, have much interest in hearing the views – or lack of them – of Starmer and his Government.
Metro
29 minutes ago
- Metro
Donald Trump's second UK state visit to take place in September
King Charles is expected to welcome Donald Trump for his state visit in September, as the pair's busy schedules have prevented them meeting earlier this summer. The King had suggested in the invitation handed to the President by Sir Keir Starmer in the Oval Office that Trump could meet him at either Balmoral or Dumfries House in Scotland prior to the full state visit. While the King is due to be in Balmoral and Trump in Scotland to visit his new golf course in Aberdeenshire in the coming months, their conflicting diaries mean they are unable to meet over the summer. No 10 has started planning for the state visit this autumn, despite some concerns from Buckingham Palace over Trump's expressed desire for Canada to become the 51st state. Canada's PM, Mark Carney, said his nation was 'not impressed' that Trump was being afforded the lavish pomp and ceremony of a state visit. During his visit to Canada for last week's G7 summit, Sir Keir reaffirmed the country to be 'an independent, sovereign nation, and quite right too'. The King also his own coded reference to sovereignty during his state opening of the Canadian parliament, quoting the nation's national anthem: 'The True North is indeed strong and free.' Preparations have now begun for the President's unprecedented second state visit, during which Trump will meet the King, who is also Canada's head of state, at Windsor. Last week, Trump received the formal invitation to the occasion, the manu regia, hand delivered to the White House by representatives of the British embassy in Washington. While the exact date is unknown, it is believed the grand occasion will go ahead some time in September. Downing Street denied going against the wishes of the King in accelerating planning for the state visit. A spokesperson for No 10 said: 'That's untrue. During his visit to the White House in February the Prime Minister was delighted to extend His Majesty the King's invite for a historic second state visit to the president and first lady and the president was pleased to accept. 'Of course the Prime Minister looks forward to welcoming President Trump.' The President first state visit was a three-day affair in London hosted by Queen Elizabeth II. Trump has said publicly he would be travelling to the UK in September for what he called a 'fest'. A source close to the King told the Times there was no disagreement between the royal household and the Government over the occasion. They added that all state visits took place on the advice of the Government. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Trump can't bomb his way to democracy – it never works MORE: Britain to buy 12 nuclear-carrying F-35A warplanes worth £700,000,000 MORE: 'Sometimes daddy has to use strong words': Trump praised for ending Israel's war with Iran
