Harry Dunn review ‘will not scrutinise actions of US government'
A parliamentary review into how the Foreign Office handled the death of Harry Dunn will not include scrutiny of the role or actions of the US government, it is understood.
The 19-year-old's family met with senior officials at the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) on Wednesday where they were told the probe will be led by former chief inspector of prisons Dame Anne Owers.
The PA news agency understands the review is set to examine the support the FCDO offered the Dunn family after Harry was killed by a former US state department employee in a road crash in 2019.
The American driver, Anne Sacoolas, had diplomatic immunity asserted on her behalf following the incident outside RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire before a senior Foreign Office official said they should 'feel able' to put her on the next flight home.
PA understands the probe, which is scheduled to last for three months, is also set to look at the actions taken by the Foreign Office in the months after Harry's death and the nature of internal decision-making.
The review will also look to identify lessons to be learned for the FCDO for comparable future situations.
The involvement of the US government, which asserted the diplomatic immunity on behalf of Ms Sacoolas, will not be examined – alongside any issues covered in previous court hearings.
Dame Anne could look to request interviews with relevant staff within the Foreign Office at the time of Harry's death, as well as documents from within the FCDO.
Following the meeting, family spokesman Radd Seiger told PA: 'I think overall the family are feeling that we are going to leave a legacy for Harry, which is that no family should ever be treated the way this family were by their own government.
'The American government really were stepping on their rights; nobody really from the government stepped forward to help them.
'Dame Anne is going to look into all of this and make a series of recommendations to David Lammy that should this ever happen again, whether here or abroad, that they will get the support and representation of the Government that they need. So we are very, very pleased.
'The reason we got justice for Harry in the end was no thanks to the United Kingdom government; it was thanks to the British public and the media on both sides of the Atlantic, who spoke truth to power and made sure that we held them to account.'
Harry's mother Charlotte Charles said the current Government was more 'welcoming' than the previous Conservative one.
She said: 'I think this Government is totally different to what we were dealing with before: they were calmer, they seemed to want to engage with us, they are welcoming us to the Foreign Office.
'We aren't being shoved down the road and they seem to have a lot of patience and time for us to get the answers that we need.
'The previous government's meetings were very fraught. I think they had us in their offices under duress almost.
'I think they almost felt like they had to do it and we could feel that in the room. But since the Labour Government got in, they've been more open with us and more welcoming.'
She said she hoped the inquiry would 'get to the reason as to why we were treated so poorly'.
Ms Charles added: 'Why did they kick us down the road, why did they try to shove Harry's life under the carpet?
'What was more important than our son's life? They were rude, they were brutal with us. They were not engaging with us at all.
'They did everything they possibly could to try to make us go away and give up. The answers we need now are why. What were they so scared of?'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Trade talks morph into Trump's global bargaining table
President Donald Trump's trade talks aren't just about trade. They're about tech regulation, defense spending, critical minerals — even war and peace. Since slapping sweeping tariffs on nearly every country in April, Trump has turned narrow, trade-focused talks into kitchen-sink diplomatic forums. In closed-door negotiations, the president's top lieutenants have pressured foreign governments to significantly increase their military budgets, upend their tax systems and scuttle domestic legislation that could hurt U.S. businesses. The president has even leveraged U.S.-brokered ceasefires, such as the one between Israel and Iran, to induce other countries to buy more American goods It's part of a broader effort by Trump to use tariffs not only as a tool to boost domestic manufacturing and revenue, but as a lever to extract concessions on a host of unrelated issues. 'Access to the American market should cost you. Additional tariffs or additional levies — of course it makes sense to tie it to foreign policy. Why wouldn't we?' said former Trump adviser Steve Cortes. 'I get why countries are like, 'What the hell? This isn't the America we've been dealing with.' No, it isn't,' Cortes added. 'You just have to decide, is it worth it? If it is, well, play by our rules.' Trump sees a win-win: If countries refuse to bend to his will, he keeps his 'Liberation Day' tariffs in place, protecting domestic businesses and boosting U.S. coffers. Case in point: Trump on Friday ended trade negotiations with Canadain part because of its digital services tax on American tech companies slated to start being collected Monday, which he called a 'direct and blatant attack on our Country' in a post on Truth Social. The broad set of issues at play has frustrated other negotiations ahead of the president's self-imposed July 8 deadline to broker trade deals, as foreign leaders grapple with the fact that everything is on the table when negotiating with the United States. The ongoing uncertainty threatens to upend the global economy, confuse American industry, alienate U.S. allies and drive countries into the arms of China. 'It's unprecedented, if not completely dubious,' said one official from an Asian country, pointing to the Trump administration raising antitrust legislation in talks with South Korea and export controls in talks with China, as an example. The person, granted anonymity to discuss the negotiations, added: 'There is no indication it's working, and Trump will not reverse course.' But White House aides argue that the administration's kitchen-sink approach matches the scope of the problem. 'This whole thing is unprecedented. I mean, we are trying to basically reset what's a four or five decade-old status quo in which the United States was basically subject to free riding by a lot of our trading partners and other countries in the world, whether it be on trade, on defense and national security,' said a White House official, granted anonymity to share the administration's thinking. 'I push back on the idea that you can silo off trade,' the official added. 'They're all connected here.' At the NATO summit in the Netherlands this week, Trump threatened new tariffs on Spain after the country refused to increase its defense spending in line with other NATO allies — even though Spain is part of the European Union and doesn't negotiate trade deals independently. It's also been a hot topic in negotiations with Japan and South Korea, which have balked at the 5 percent across-the-board defense spending target the U.S. has set for its allies in Asia despite their exclusion from NATO. Trump this month said the U.S., which spends roughly 3.4 percent of its GDP on defense, would not abide by the 5 percent pledge. Trump has positioned Canadian investment in his 'Golden Dome' missile defense system for the United States as a way for the country to 'prove' itself amid ongoing trade negotiations — though the U.S. actually can't build the system without help from its northern neighbor. At the same time, the U.S. is pressuring South Korea to abandon antitrust legislative proposals aimed at regulating online platforms that are opposed by Google, Apple and Meta. It has also, like Canada, pressured the U.K. and EU countries to eliminate their digital services tax. On Tuesday, Trump added another demand, suggesting that China boost purchases of American oil as a thank you for the Israel-Iran ceasefire — an ask that comes as the president pushes Beijing to increase its imports from the U.S. And he's implied that he used the cudgel of trade wars to negotiate peace between India and Pakistan this spring, though India has disputed the suggestion. Trump took a similar approach during his first term when he threatened hefty levies to get Mexico to curb the flow of Central American migrants to the U.S., and tariffed China over 'unfair practices' in part related to the theft of U.S. intellectual property. In his second term, Trump has built on that strategy. He levied tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China in February aimed at curbing the tide of fentanyl and undocumented immigrants into the U.S. He also in April threatened 25 percent 'secondary tariffs' on any country that imports oil from Venezuela, a move he framed as targeting the country's authoritarian leader Nicolás Maduro and the Tren de Aragua gang. Foreign leaders are confronting the very real possibility that if they slow walk negotiations or abandon talks, Trump would happily slap a tariff large enough to effectively serve as an embargo with the U.S. — cutting off access to the world's largest economy. 'The president feels that tariffs are leverage — leverage for the relationship, of which trade is one component. That's why each of these negotiations has unique elements to it, which makes matters more unpredictable,' said one former White House official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the president's approach. But giving into the president's demands on non-trade issues isn't a guarantee of tariff relief. Trump has shown no signs that he will heed French President Emmanuel Macron's calls for an end to the U.S.'s trade war with the European Union after NATO members agreed to hike defense spending to 5 percent of their gross domestic product. That unwillingness to significantly budge on his array of tariffs has bogged down trade negotiations and hindered the administration from crafting substantial trade deals. As the U.S. has set out to negotiate deals with more than 60 trading partners, world leaders have grown increasingly frustrated with what they say are unbalanced demands from the U.S. Other trading partners, including the European Union, have bristled at the terms of the UK framework and said they would not agree to a similar deal. That arrangement left a 10 percent so-called baseline tariff in place, while laying out a path to slash sector-specific tariffs. The bloc isn't alone, and Trump's numerous demands and 'do-it-or-else' approach have made it challenging for countries to corral the domestic political support they'll need in order to sell any deal at home. 'If the deal gets too imbalanced, it will get a very bad reception by most of our national public opinions,' said one European official granted anonymity to speak candidly about the state of negotiations with the United States. 'I don't think the EU side and countries can really accept a very imbalanced deal without risk of it backfiring.' But former Trump administration officials doubt the White House is about to change course. 'I see no evidence that the administration intends to reverse or scale back its use of this approach,' said Patrick Childress, a former U.S. Trade Representative assistant general counsel.
Indianapolis Star
an hour ago
- Indianapolis Star
Trump's refusal to enforce TikTok ban is his most lawless presidential act
The first several months of Donald Trump's second presidential term have been marked by controversy and charges that he's a lawless president. However, the most brazen example of Trump's lawlessness is his refusal to enforce the TikTok ban, which has been passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. On June 19, Trump extended the deadline for TikTok to shut down by another 90 days, marking the third time he has done so. The TikTok ban is the law of the land, and Trump's refusal to enforce it is a dereliction of his duties as president. Those who are silent on it should put aside their own personal motives and bring more attention to this fact. Many forget that a TikTok ban was originally Trump's idea, and that many Democrats wrote the idea off as just another piece of his anti-China agenda. However, things have changed. Trump seemingly developed a soft spot for TikTok because he believes it helped him win reelection. Still, in the time between Trump's original stance and his change of heart on the issue, a law banning TikTok passed the House and Senate and was signed in 2024 by then-President Joe Biden. The Supreme Court even upheld the ban, against the arguments of TikTok's lawyers. The law banning TikTok does have a provision that allows for the president to delay the deadline for TikTok to cease operations or agree to a sale. Still, the criteria allowing for such an extension are nowhere close to being fulfilled. Briggs: Jim Banks would let Trump commit any crime you can imagine The text of the ban allows for the president to extend the deadline a single time for 90 days, so long as TikTok is close to reaching a deal with an American company to sell. There is no indication that's the case, and Trump's arbitrary executive orders are flagrantly illegal. Even Trump's guise in refusing to enforce the law – the idea that he is attempting to give TikTok time to broker a deal − doesn't make sense. Nothing would be more compelling for TikTok to sell the app to an American company than the ban going into effect. An app that cannot run is useless to its owners, and their best course of action would be to sell. The president does not have discretion over which laws he would like to enforce and which he would like to ignore. Trump's decision to arbitrarily extend TikTok's lifespan does exactly that. The president, along with the rest of the executive branch, has an obligation to enforce the laws of the nation that have been passed by Congress and signed into law. A president's job is to enforce the law, whereas Congress' job is to decide what the law is. When a president can choose which laws he is to enforce, he is deciding what the law is, in a sense. Hicks: The middle class isn't disappearing. It's just spending money differently That's why Trump's refusal to enforce the ban is his most lawless action as president. Sure, there's the constitutionality of his deportation schemes and his reinterpretation of birthright citizenship, but those instances had judicial checks. In no other area is Trump as actively derelict in his duties as president without repercussions as he is in relation to the TikTok ban. For all the talk about Trump being a lawless president, Democrats and Republicans have both been relatively quiet about this single worst example of Trump acting as such. Republicans should be wary about the next administration of Democrats that comes along refusing to enforce a certain law because they disagree with it, or they simply don't feel like it. If Democrats were the ones refusing to enforce the ban on TikTok, it would be the only thing Republicans talked about. I'm sure that the outrage would be far louder if Trump were refusing to enforce other statutes, such as parts of the National Firearms Act, the tax code, or any other number of statutes that Democrats are sympathetic to. However, because it concerns a popular social media platform remaining in service, the complaints are rather quiet. Refusal to enforce laws is not a path Americans want our presidents to travel. That slippery slope can take us to some very dangerous places.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite his major Supreme Court victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with a more than century-old constitutional precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of Trump's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in part to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved Americans, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused reentry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a few exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump signed an executive order upon assuming office in January that seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The order is part of the president's hard-line anti-immigration agenda, and he has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' — which they contend means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Md., a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued are usurping the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities on immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review' in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of policies across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and chief executive of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' Sullivan and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.
