King Charles to host Donald Trump and his wife Melania for state visit in September, Buckingham Palace confirms
The President will be accompanied by his wife, First Lady Melania, on his trip from September 17 to 19, Buckingham Palace said. He was previously feted by a state visit in 2019.
The House of Commons will not be sitting at the time because it will be in recess for the party conference season, meaning he will not be able to address Parliament as French president Emmanuel Macron did during his visit last week.
However, the House of Lords will be sitting.
In February, during a meeting at the White House, Sir Keir Starmer presented Mr Trump with a 'historic and unprecedented' personal invitation from the King inviting him for a second state visit.
In the letter, Charles suggested he and the President might meet at Balmoral or Dumfries House in Scotland before the grander state visit began.
However, it is understood that there were logistical challenges surrounding an informal visit, with complexities in both the King and Mr Trump's diaries meaning a private meeting was not possible over the summer months.
It emerged last week that Police Scotland has been in the early stages of planning for the visit, which is likely to see the President travel to either of his golf clubs in Aberdeenshire or Ayrshire – an event which will require substantial policing resources.
In February, during a meeting at the White House, Sir Keir Starmer presented Mr Trump with a 'historic and unprecedented' personal invitation from the King
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.
The September event comes after Charles visited Canada in May where he opened the nation's parliament.
Many Canadians saw the King's two-day visit to Ottawa as a symbol of support for the country that has faced the unwanted attention of Mr Trump's trade war and threats to annex it.
Last week, Mr Macron and his wife Brigitte were hosted by the King and Queen during his three-day visit.
Mr Macron's itinerary included a glittering banquet at Windsor Castle, a carriage ride through the historic Berkshire town and a ceremonial welcome.
The state dinner was attended by the Queen, the Prince and Princess of Wales, the Prime Minister and senior members of the Cabinet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Equalities watchdog guidance delayed until later in year
Guidance from Britain's equalities watchdog including on trans peoples' use of certain spaces is likely to be delayed until later this year. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said it received more than 50,000 responses to its code of practice consultation. The commission had been expected to present final guidance to women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson by the time Parliament broke up for summer next week. But in an update on Tuesday, the regulator said it was continuing to review the thousands of responses and would be amending its draft code over the summer. In an update on its website, the commission said: 'We received over 50,000 responses to our code of practice consultation. 'We are working at pace to review these and will use our findings to amend the draft code of practice over the summer. Keep checking this page for further updates.' The commission had earlier tripled the length of time for feedback, from an original proposal for a two-week consultation, following criticism from some that this was too short a timeframe. Following a Supreme Court ruling in April, which said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, the commission issued draft guidance on a range of topics, including trans peoples' participation in sport and use of toilets. According to the draft, a birth certificate could be requested by a sports club or hospital if there is 'genuine concern' about what biological sex a person is. Elsewhere, the draft code said trans people can be excluded from competitive sport 'when necessary for reasons of safety or fair competition', and gave an example of how some services might be able to adapt to 'offer toilets in individual lockable rooms to be used by both sexes'. The code stated that a service provided only to women and trans women or only to men and trans men 'is not a separate-sex or single-sex service' under the Equality Act and could amount to unlawful sex discrimination against those of the opposite sex who are not allowed to use it. Commission chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner previously said there was an 'obvious' demand since the court's ruling for 'authoritative guidance' for a range of providers from businesses to hospitals to sports clubs.
The Guardian
10 minutes ago
- The Guardian
UK's top defence maker BAE Systems ‘confident' of receiving orders for Typhoon jets
British weapons manufacturer BAE Systems has said it is confident of receiving further export orders of the Typhoon fighter jet, a development that would secure the future of several hundred jobs at its factory in Lancashire. The company is hoping for as many as 150 more orders for the jet, with up to two-thirds of those expected to be assembled in the UK. It comes after Unite, a union representing manufacturing workers, raised concerns over the future of the assembly line at Warton. Richard Hamilton, who leads work on the Typhoon for BAE Systems, said he was 'really confident' of future orders, with Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia the likely buyers. FTSE 100 manufacturer BAE Systems is the UK's dominant defence maker, producing weapons ranging from tanks, to warships and nuclear submarines, as well as fighter jets. However, Unite last week said work on the Typhoon's UK assembly lines had stopped because there were no future orders, threatening its closure. The Typhoon, also known as the Eurofighter, was developed as a joint project between the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain, and has been a mainstay of the Royal Air Force for two decades, including intercepting Russian aircraft since the invasion of Ukraine. Manufacturing work is shared out between the nations, but each country assembles the planes it has ordered, as well as those of export partners. In the UK's case, the Ministry of Defence has not ordered any more of the jets, despite recently confirming a further order of US-made F-35 aircraft. The UK has not secured further exports of the Typhoon to other nations, which has meant work has stopped on the final assembly line at Warton, raising concerns among unions over as many as 500 jobs. Hamilton said that 'we have no intention at the moment of reducing manufacturing headcount', and suggested that workers could be redeployed on other projects if there were an extended gap until the next orders. 'I want to build more Typhoons here, and I believe we will build more Typhoons here,' he said. BAE is working on upgrades to the Typhoon's electronics, including new computer systems and radar, to extend its time in service. Hamilton said a commitment to the upgrades by the UK government would make it more likely other countries would order the planes. New orders could mean continued production of the Typhoon in the UK for another decade. BAE is also a key part of a consortium of the UK, Italy and Japan producing a new fighter jet, known as Tempest, which is due to enter service in 2035. The UK government has backed Saudi Arabia's efforts to join the Tempest programme, despite controversy over the country's human rights record, including the allegedly state-sanctioned murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and its long involvement in the civil war in Yemen. BAE Systems executives said the company was on track to fly a demonstrator aircraft by 2027. Keir Starmer last month committed to raise defence spending to the equivalent of 3.5% of GDP in line with Nato allies. Part of that increase will be paid for by cuts to the international aid budget.
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘Am I going bonkers?' Judge attacks government cover-up of Afghan leak
'Am I going bonkers?' Those were the words of a High Court judge as he discovered the full extent of the government cover-up of a secret immigration scheme. Mr Justice Chamberlain had just been told that £6 billion of public spending (now £7 billion) was being hidden with the use of an unprecedented superinjunction. While the cover-up was ostensibly to protect thousands of Afghans who had helped the British Government, as well as their families, ministers also appeared to be trying to protect themselves. John Healey, the Defence Secretary, said in one memo seen by the court that: ' Political and reputational considerations ' had been a key factor informing the Government's response. For the first time in British history, a government had used the courts to prevent anyone – and in particular the media and MPs – from revealing not only what they were up to, but the very existence of the court proceedings. Mr Justice Chamberlain recognised it for what it was: an unparalleled assault on free speech and, as one barrister put it, a way for ministers to 'deliberately mislead the public'. Superinjunctions, more commonly obtained by footballers to shut down reporting of extra-marital affairs, were 'interferences with freedom of expression which take place under the radar', the judge said, and when the Government obtained one it was: 'Likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship.' Mr Justice Chamberlain rightly observed that the injunction – granted by another judge in September 2023 – was 'completely shutting down' democratic accountability and decided to lift it, only for the Court of Appeal to overrule him. He said it was 'the first contra mundum superinjunction ever granted'. The Latin phrase for 'against the whole world' explains what the court order meant. Instead of being granted against a named individual, or news organisation, anyone at all who learnt of the leak was banned from talking about it under threat of imprisonment. Grant Shapps had been granted the injunction on his second day as defence secretary, after journalists approached the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to comment on a story about a vast data breach that exposed the identities and addresses of Afghan soldiers seeking asylum in the UK. Rishi Sunak's government decided the public must not find out about a secret plan to offer 24,000 Afghans asylum. It argued that lives would be at risk if the media or Parliament revealed the existence of the leak, or the asylum scheme that followed, because the Taliban would be alerted to the existence of the list and would target those who had helped the US-led coalition before its withdrawal in 2021. Instead of being in place for four months – as originally requested while the MoD organised an airlift of those affected – the Sunak government, and then the Labour government that replaced it in 2024, kept the injunction in place for nearly two years. During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers' reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government's lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an 'agreed narrative' in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public. The judge warned that: 'Open justice is a cardinal constitutional principle, from which derogations can be justified only in exceptional circumstances,' and as the case wore on over the course of dozens of hearings, it became clear that he felt that definition was not being met. Tom Forster KC, who was appointed by the judge as a special advocate to challenge the Government in court, told him the lack of scrutiny had put 'the democratic process in the deep freeze'. In February last year, he invited journalists from media organisations that knew about the leak (and who had been threatened with jail if they reported it) to question Natalie Moore, a senior MoD official, at a hearing held behind closed doors. The journalists pointed out that the issue could affect the forthcoming general election and made the case anew for the public to be told the truth. By May last year – before the election – the judge's patience had run out. He ruled that the 'continued stifling of public debate' could no longer be justified and said the injunction was 'closing off public debate on an issue of profound moral and economic significance'. The MoD immediately appealed, hiring one of the country's most eminent barristers, Sir James Eadie KC, at taxpayers' expense. He persuaded the Court of Appeal to overrule Mr Justice Chamberlain and keep the injunction in place. In October, a Cabinet sub-committee chaired by Pat McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster – and attended by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, Mr Healey, the Defence Secretary, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, and Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor – decided provisionally to expand the asylum scheme. By then, the projected costs had increased to £6 billion, and at another hearing last November, when Mr Justice Chamberlain was told how much public spending was being concealed, he spluttered: 'I am starting to doubt myself – am I going bonkers, because it really is £6 billion?' He added: 'When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. 'It's not secret intelligence programmes, it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening…the basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.' 'Provide cover' Ms Moore told the court a statement would be made to Parliament to 'provide cover' for why so many Afghans were arriving in Britain. A government briefing paper shown to the court said that ministers wanted to 'control the narrative' and use a 'robust public comms strategy' to set out 'the scale but not the cause' of the Afghans arriving. The judge said: 'How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now seeing how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative.' He added: 'It is a very, very striking thing.' Mr Healey made a statement to Parliament in December in which mention was made of the resettlement scheme, followed by another statement earlier this month saying the scheme had ended. Last week the Government decided that the threat to Afghan lives was 'less than previously thought', and that the superinjunction might actually have made the situation worse. It paved the way for the injunction to be lifted – and for the media to finally tell the truth to the public – after being gagged for 683 days.
