Trump to be hosted by King at Windsor during unprecedented second state visit
The US president will be accompanied by his wife, First Lady Melania Trump, on his state visit to the UK from September 17 to 19, Buckingham Palace said.
This will be Mr Trump's second state visit to the UK – an unprecedented gesture towards an American leader, having previously been feted by a state visit in 2019.
The House of Commons will not be sitting at the time of Mr Trump's visit as it will be in recess for party conference season, meaning the president will not be able to address Parliament as French President Emmanuel Macron did during his state visit this week.
However, the House of Lords will be sitting.
A senior minister insisted the timing of the trip was a matter for Buckingham Palace, rather than an attempt by the Government to avoid potential embarrassment over a parliamentary address.
Treasury chief secretary Darren Jones said: 'I don't know why the particular dates were chosen by the Palace.
'Of course, state visits are organised by the Palace, not by the Government or Parliament.'
Former Commons speaker John Bercow opposed Mr Trump appearing in Parliament during his first term in office and 20 MPs have signed a motion resisting an invitation being issued this time around.
Mr Jones told ITV's Good Morning Britain the Government was 'looking forward to welcoming' Mr Trump.
'We benefit in terms of our economy and our defence and national security capabilities by continuing our very historic and important relationship with the United States of America, whoever is president,' he said.
In February this year, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer presented the US president with a letter from the King as he invited him for the visit during a meeting at the White House.
As the pair were sat next to each other in the Oval Office, Sir Keir handed the president the personal invitation, later saying 'this is truly historic and unprecedented'.
After reading it, Mr Trump said it was a 'great, great honour', adding 'and that says at Windsor – that's really something'.
In the letter, Charles suggested he and the president might meet at Balmoral or Dumfries House in Scotland first before the much grander state visit.
However, it is understood that, although all options were explored, 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 course of the summer months.
This week, a senior Police Scotland officer said the cost of policing a visit by Mr Trump will be 'considerable' and that the force will look to secure extra funding.
It emerged on Wednesday that the force was in the early stages of planning for a visit at the end of this month, which is likely to see the president visit one or both of his golf clubs in Aberdeenshire and Ayrshire and require substantial policing resources and probably units to be called in from elsewhere in the UK.
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 late Queen hosted Mr Trump during his first state visit.
News of the plans for the September visit comes days after the King wrote to Mr Trump to express his 'profound sadness' after catastrophic flooding killed nearly 90 people in Texas.
Charles 'offered his deepest sympathy' to those who lost loved ones over the July Fourth weekend, the British Embassy in Washington said.
Back in March, Mr Trump sent the King his 'best wishes' and 'good health' in a phone call with Sir Keir after Charles spent a brief period in hospital after experiencing temporary side effects from his cancer treatment.
The September state visit comes after Charles visited Canada back 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 against his neighbour and threats to annex Canada.
This week, French president Mr Macron and his wife Brigitte were hosted by the King and Queen during his three-day state visit.
Mr Macron's itinerary included a glittering state 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
Reuters
17 minutes ago
- Reuters
Central bank independence needs a better defence: Peacock
LONDON, July 14 (Reuters) - Investors may be fixated on Donald Trump's attacks on the Federal Reserve, but the Bank of England also faces increasing political scrutiny, raising alarm bells about the future of central bank independence. The U.S. president has fired a regular volley of vitriol at Fed Chief Jerome Powell in recent months, demanding interest rates cuts and hinting that he will appoint a presumably more like-minded replacement when Powell's term ends next year. While Trump is not the first U.S. president to try to pressure the Fed since it formally became independent from the Treasury in 1951, his attacks are the most public, and this has caused some market wobbles. That's because history suggests that independent monetary policy is better at keeping prices in check than having politicians control interest rates, as the latter may be keen to keep borrowing costs low no matter what. The U.S. bond market has been unnerved by some of Trump's comments about the Fed in recent months, particularly when he wrote in April that Powell's termination 'cannot come soon enough.' But investors appear to be increasingly inured to the president's rhetoric, believing he will back down before doing anything truly destabilising. Relying on the markets as a safeguard, therefore, may not be enough. The Fed would be well advised to gird its defences in advance of Powell's departure, and one opportunity to do so is its periodic strategic review set to be unveiled this fall. The last review, in 2020, made the Fed's inflation targeting more flexible, allowing for periods of moderately higher inflation to balance times when it dropped below target. At a time when the U.S. president is both pressuring the Fed to lower interest rates and pursuing trade policies that could be inflationary, the Fed would be wise to drop the 'flexible' approach and instead focus on meeting its inflation target at all times. That would send a clear message to the American people that its top priority will be tamping down the cost-of-living pressures that have hit hard since 2021, helping to bolster its legitimacy with the public. On the other side of the pond, the Bank of England is also facing questions about the way it operates. Britain's insurgent Reform Party, which holds a consistent lead in opinion polls, says the Bank wastes billions of pounds of taxpayers' money by paying interest to commercial banks on their reserves and should therefore stop doing this. It has also suggested one or more government officials should sit on the BoE's Monetary Policy Committee. Bank Governor Andrew Bailey pushed back in a published letter, opens new tab, arguing that if the official interest rate was not paid on reserves, the transmission of monetary policy to the real economy would be hampered and banks would be tempted to reduce those holdings, potentially creating a financial stability risk. He also offered a cogent defence of the ongoing benefits of quantitative easing as well as the costs. Importantly, if this government or a future one were to mandate a change to the BoE's reserves regime, it would smack of 'fiscal dominance', whereby high government debts influence the way a central bank operates. Once that box has been opened, it could lead to speculation that interest rate changes were being swayed by the same factor, a massive red flag for investors. The UK government's last root-and-branch review of the Bank's remit was a decade ago. Given everything that has happened since then – Brexit, COVID-19, the cost-of-living crisis – it is time for another look and would give the Bank a forum to clarify its goals and available toolkit. To silence doubters, many issues need addressing, including the diversity of thought on the Bank's policy committees, accountability to parliament and the public, the breadth of its remit, the interplay of monetary policy and financial stability and the Bank's communications. Moreover, given that quantitative easing was a leap into uncharted waters, there are legitimate questions to ask about its effectiveness, its wider impact on the economy and its reversal via quantitative tightening. The Bank is closing in on its Preferred Minimum Range of Reserves, so it is a good time to evaluate this program and then communicate the findings clearly to the public. And now is likely a good time to act. It was only three years ago that then-Prime Minister Liz Truss attacked the Bank for not foreseeing the market's reaction to her ill-fated budget. Attempting to make any changes to BoE policy in such a charged environment would have been very challenging. In stark contrast, current Finance Minister Rachel Reeves, a former BoE employee, has pledged not to interfere with its independence and would thus be far less apt to politicize any Bank action. The same won't necessarily be the case with whomever succeeds her. As former Bank of England Deputy Governor Paul Tucker said at a recent conference in London, the best way for central banks to preserve independence is to 'do their job, stick to the mandate, explain it as clearly as possible. Don't try to intervene in politics'. The problem is that politics may continue to interfere with them. (The views expressed here are those of Mike Peacock, the former head of communications at the Bank of England and a former senior editor at Reuters). Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tab your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI,, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn,, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
Leader Live
18 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Starmer to meet Trump during Scotland trip ahead of state visit
Mr Trump is expected to travel to Scotland in July before the state visit in September. A Downing Street spokesman said: 'The White House has confirmed that President Trump will be making a private visit to Scotland later this month. 'Given he is visiting a private capacity, there will not be a formal bilateral but the Prime Minister is pleased to take up the president's invite to meet during his stay.' Police Scotland have said they will seek Government help with the 'considerable' costs of the Trump visit, after it emerged last week that the force was in the early stages of planning for a visit. The US president's state visit will follow from September 17 to 19, Buckingham Palace has confirmed. He will be hosted by the King and Queen at Windsor Castle and accompanied by his wife, Melania Trump. There had been speculation about whether Mr Trump would be able to address Parliament, as French President Emmanuel Macron did during his state visit last week. MPs will not be around during the confirmed dates, which fall just after they start a break for party conference season. Nigel Farage called for Parliament to be recalled so Mr Trump can speak before MPs and peers. The Reform UK leader posted on X: 'Why does Keir Starmer think that the French president is a better friend to this country than the American president? Parliament must be recalled for Donald Trump's state visit to the UK. Why does @Keir_Starmer think Macron is a better friend of Britain than Trump? — Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) July 14, 2025 'He's got it completely wrong. I believe Parliament should be recalled and Trump should be given the opportunity to address both houses.' The Liberal Democrats meanwhile did not urge for MPs to be called back, but said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney should be invited for a state visit and to address Parliament. 'The Prime Minister should invite Mark Carney for an official visit to the UK just ahead of Trump's visit, including the opportunity to address Parliament. 'This would send an important signal that Britain stands shoulder to shoulder with Canada against Trump's chaotic trade war,' Sir Ed Davey said. Asked for Sir Keir's view on the president addressing Parliament, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'The Prime Minister is focused on welcoming President Trump to the UK for an historic second state visit and building on the excellent relationship they've had that's been delivering for working people. 'The dates of the visit are for President Trump and the Palace (…) details around the programme will be announced in due course.' Stephen Gethins MP, the SNP's foreign affairs spokesman, said that Sir Keir should not be 'rewarding Trump's bad behaviour' and instead focus on rebuilding ties with European partners. 'While there is an obvious need to engage, rolling out the red carpet of a state visit is the wrong approach when dealing with Trump,' he said.
Glasgow Times
20 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
MPs slam ‘disgraceful' rollback of Northern Ireland veterans legislation
A debate over withdrawing the legal protections established by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, which shield veterans from being prosecuted for historic actions between 1969 and 2007 during Operation Banner, took place at Westminster Hall on Monday. MPs critical of the move suggested it would open a 'witch-hunt' against veterans who served to protect citizens across communities in Northern Ireland. The debate followed a public petition against repealing the legislation which attracted more than 170,000 signatures. Conservative MP John Lamont, who opened the parliamentary session, said the rollback could lead to 'two-tier' payouts for figures such as former Republican politician Gerry Adams. Mr Lamont said: '[The change] could result in a six-figure payout for Mr Adams, simply because his interim custody order was not considered by the secretary of state, but rather a junior minister. 'That is simply outrageous. 'We have seen a lot of examples of two-tier justice since the Labour government came to power, but this may simply be the worst of all. 'Is the Government really contemplating creating a system to drag northern Irish veterans through the courts, whilst potentially paying millions to terrorists? 'We should also be clear about the differences between the actions of soldiers and terrorists. When terrorists get up in the morning, they go out with murderous intent to use violence to attack our democracy. Soldiers do not. 'The Legacy Act is by no means perfect, but it is better than the disgraceful spectacle of veterans being dragged through the courts. 'Doing so is not sustainable – legally or morally.' (left to right) Rohit Pathak, Denise Walker, 58, former catering corps veteran from Glasgow, and Anthony Johnson, 67, veteran and protester, participate in a march outside Parliament (Lily Shangaher/PA) Others echoed Mr Lamont's comments, highlighting the implications the rollback could have on the armed forces in future conflicts. Conservative MP Sir David Davis argued the change would mean that British soldiers would be abandoned by the country they served. He said: 'Getting this right is not just a matter of historical justice. 'The legal witch-hunt won't end in Northern Ireland. 'It'll cast a shadow over every future conflict that our armed forces engage in, and undermine their abilities to defend us.' He added: 'Those who freely talk about human rights would do well to remember that our rights, our law, our democracy and our nation were protected by the very veterans that are at risk today. 'So let us all make one promise, that no British soldier will ever again be abandoned by the nation they have so bravely protected.' Other MPs voiced their support in favour of the Government's proposals, arguing that the current act is not fit for purpose. Labour MP Louise Jones suggested that the lack of support for the legislation among victims, politicians across parties in Northern Ireland, and veterans themselves meant it ought to be repealed. She said: 'This Legacy Act has been found to be unlawful. It gives immunity to terrorists, and it denies justice to the families of the 200 service personnel that were murdered by terrorists during the Troubles. 'It is not supported in its current form by victims, it's not supported by a Northern Irish party, and many veterans are troubled by it. It must go and be replaced, and I call on the minister to outline how we can protect veterans from malicious lawfare of any conflict.' 'We have a huge duty here in Westminster to work with those communities not against them, and I hope everyone here will reflect on that important undertaking.' Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn pointed to statistics from the Centre for Military Justice that show that only one British soldier has been convicted since the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. He suggested that this was the case over the 27 years, despite immunity for British military personnel not being enshrined in law for the majority of this time. Catriona Wallace, a veteran and protester (Lily Shanagher/AP) Mr Benn also argued that the changes would allow incomplete investigations into the deaths of soldiers to reopen. He said: 'Legacy is hard. This is the unfinished business of the Good Friday agreement. 'And that is why we need to listen to the many families who lost loved ones, including the families of British service personnel, who served so bravely. 'There are more than 200 families of UK military personnel who are still searching for answers 30, 40, 50 years ago about the murder of their loved ones. 'The Police Service of Northern Ireland recently confirmed they had 202 live investigations into Troubles-related killings of members of our armed forces, and a further 23 into the killings of veterans. 'Each and every one of those investigations was forced to close by the Legacy Act, and we will bring forward legislation to deal with that. 'The other challenge is the lack of confidence in the act on the part of communities in Northern Ireland, which we are going to seek to reform. 'We owe it to all these families.'
