Ukraine is set to be top of the agenda as Foreign Secretary James Cleverly begins a two-day trip to the US and Canada.
Speaking ahead of his departure, Mr Cleverly said: “The UK, US and Canada always have each other’s backs when it counts, protecting the rules-based order for nearly 80 years.”
He continued: “Today we stand united against Putin’s illegal war, and we will continue to use our uniquely strong defence and security ties to ensure that, in the end, the Ukrainian people will win.”
He will deliver a keynote speech at Washington’s Centre for Strategic and International Studies, at which he is set to outline Britain’s foreign policy priorities before talks with his US counterpart Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The two will then hold a joint news conference.
On Monday, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace announced that British tanks, artillery pieces and armoured vehicles are to be sent to Ukraine.
Mr Cleverly is set to use this British pledge to persuade the Americans and the Canadians to follow the UK’s lead. He is expected to stress the need for the right battlefield tools to be given to the Ukrainians quickly to allow them to win the war.
The Americans have delivered billions of dollars worth of weaponry to Ukraine over the past 11 months, but only in carefully managed tranches with limited capability for fear of provoking Russia.
Image: James Cleverly and Anthony Blinken met in New York in September 2022
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said he is committed to the acceleration of the UK’s diplomatic and military assistance to Ukraine as Russia prepares to launch a new offensive.
Top members of President Biden’s team are in the Ukrainian capital this week for meetings with President Zelenskyy.
Advertisement
Antony Blinken’s deputy Wendy Sherman, Dr. Colin Kahl, undersecretary of defence for policy and Jon Finer, principal deputy national security adviser, are all in Kyiv after meetings in Germany and Poland where they discussed continued US support for Ukraine.
Beyond Ukraine, the British government hopes the elusive UK-US trade deal will be discussed with the Americans in Washington.
In Toronto, on Wednesday, Mr Cleverly is set to discuss British efforts to become a member of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), a key free trade agreement between 11 countries including Canada.
Britain has reached the final phase of CPTPP accession, but disagreements remain over levels of market access the existing members would have to Britain.
Northern Ireland is also set to feature in discussions between Mr Cleverly and Mr Blinken. As speculation mounts that a EU-UK compromise over the Brexit Northern Ireland Protocol may be close, the UK will seek the support of the US.
President Biden has taken a close interest in negotiations over Northern Ireland and has made clear that the UK’s handling of the issue could impact the chances of a US-UK trade deal.
Cleverly has a tricky job
This is the most important trip for James Cleverly since he became foreign secretary last year.
He was appointed by Liz Truss but survived that chaos and was retained by Rishi Sunak. He’s quickly built a reputation for impressive diplomacy.
Comfortable in his own skin and outwardly confident with his brief, he is popular within the Foreign Office and, it seems, liked by his counterparts in foreign capitals.
But as Britain’s top diplomat, he has a tricky job. The UK’s global position is diminished. The world has looked at usually stable Britain in surprise as our politics has faltered and our economy sputters.
Cleverly will be pushing progress on the illusive US-UK trade deal and trying to reassure the Americans that Britain is now close to a workable solution for Northern Ireland. Biden, with his Irish roots, is watching closely. The shadow of Brexit is long.
But Ukraine will be the thrust for Cleverly.
Rishi Sunak’s government is trying to fill the hole left by Boris Johnson’s departure. Johnson’s forthright stance on the defence of Ukraine was admired across Western nations.
There will be an attempt on this trip to show clear British leadership and initiative to encourage deeper, faster international alignment over Ukraine.
We’re told that Cleverly will attempt to persuade his American and Canadian counterparts that now is the time to give Ukraine the tools it needs to win the war, not just to hold the frontline.
The British consignment of tanks, artillery and armoured vehicles will do little to change the battlefield picture on their own. Indeed, prepare for the prized Russian propaganda image of a Challenger 2 burned and destroyed.
The British hope is that their tank package will incentivise other nations to follow with their own equipment.
Cleverly’s message will be: arm Ukraine properly now and this can be over sooner rather than later with a weakened Russia forced to negotiate.
The Americans have sent huge quantities of lethal equipment to Ukraine changing the course of the war. But they’ve not yet sent tanks, mechanized artillery or armoured vehicles which could repel Russian advances.
The fear, always, has been Putin’s reaction to the full Western arming of Ukraine. And so, little by little, America has increased what it has been prepared to deliver.
But Biden is under growing domestic congressional pressure to justify his Ukraine spending. On Capitol Hill, lawmakers want audits and proof that America is backing a winner not simply prolonging the conflict and the bloodshed.
The US federal government’s longest-ever shutdown is to come to an end after Congress finally voted through a funding deal.
The shutdown, which started on 1 October, has disrupted the lives of millions of Americans as all non-essential parts of government have been frozen.
It came after Democrats and Republicans refused to budge in their stand-off over healthcare spending, causing the first shutdown in almost seven years as the parties failed to agree on a government funding bill.
But on Wednesday night in Washington DC, the House of Representatives voted through a deal to reopen the government after the Senate – the upper chamber of Congress – reached a deal on Monday.
It will now go to the desk of President Donald Trump, who the White House has said will sign it tonight. It will fund the government through to 30 January.
Image: The standoff was largely over healthcare differences. Pic: AP
The Democrats had refused to support a Republican budget plan unless tax credits that made medical insurance cheaper for millions of people were renewed.
The willingness of eight moderate Democrats to break the Senate deadlock without that guarantee has provoked fury among many in the party.
While it will restore funding to federal agencies that have gone without since 1 October, and also prevent any further layoffs until 30 January, many voters will be left to count the cost of higher costs for their healthcare.
What’s a federal government shutdown?
A shutdown of the federal government means that all non-essential functions of government are frozen, affecting everything from social security to air travel to national park access.
Federal agencies are dependent on funding being approved by Congress to allow the president to sign budget legislation for the fiscal year ahead.
If they cannot approve funding (because of political differences – and America is bitterly divided) then those agencies are forced to shut down.
This means that workers cannot do their jobs and are not paid.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
A series of emails between disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and others which feature the name of Donald Trump have been released.
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee who put out the messages claim the correspondence “raises questions about Trump and Epstein’s relationship, Trump’s knowledge of Epstein’s crimes” and the president’s relationship to Epstein’s victims.
But White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, says the “selectively leaked emails” are an attempt to “create a fake narrative to smear President Trump“.
The messages are dated between 2011 and 2019 and some are between Jeffrey Epstein and his sex trafficking co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell and others between Epstein and author Michael Wolff.
The US president has consistently denied any involvement or knowledge about Epstein’s sex trafficking operation.
In the first exchange of emails, between Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, dated 2 April 2011, Epstein wrote:
i want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump.. [REDACTED NAME] spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75% there
Maxwell responded:
I have been thinking about that…
In the second exchange of emails, between Epstein and Michael Wolff, a journalist who has written several books about the Trump administration, dated 31 January 2019, Epstein wrote:
[REDACTED NAME] mara lago. [REDACTED] . trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever. . of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop
The third email exchange, between Epstein and Wolff, dated between 15 and 16 December 2015 shows that Wolff wrote:
I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you–either on air or in scrum afterwards.
Epstein replied:
if we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?
Wolff responded:
I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.
The White House and Republicans on the committee have said that the redacted name in one of the emails was Virginia Giuffre, a prominent Epstein survivor who died in April and had never accused Mr Trump of wrongdoing.
Ms Giuffre made allegations of three sexual encounters with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was stripped of his prince title, in her autobiography which was released last month – allegations Andrew has denied.
Sky News’s US news partner NBC News has reached out to lawyers for Michael Wolff, Maxwell and the family of Virginia Giuffre for comment.
The top Democrat on the House committee, Robert Garcia of California, said in a statement that the released emails “raise glaring questions about what else the White House is hiding and the nature of the relationship between Epstein and the President”.
The Oversight Committee Democrats say the email strike “a blow against the White House’s Epstein cover-up”.
But White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt said in a statement: “The Democrats selectively leaked emails to the liberal media to create a fake narrative to smear President Trump.
“The ‘unnamed victim’ referenced in these emails is the late Virginia Giuffre, who repeatedly said President Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing whatsoever and ‘couldn’t have been friendlier’ to her in their limited interactions.”
Mr Trump’s legal team has accused the BBC of using “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements”.
BBC Chair Samir Shah has apologised for an “error of judgment” over the way the speech was edited, while director-general, Tim Davie, and CEO of BBC News, Deborah Turness, have both announced their resignations.
But this is not the first time Mr Trump has taken on the media – and is in fact the latest in a recent spate of legal battles with the press.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:00
BBC will consider settling with Trump says legal correspondent
Trump vs CNN
If past examples are anything to go by, Mr Trump’s legal threat is not an empty one.
He previously filed a $475m (£360m) defamation suit against CNN, alleging it had compared him to Adolf Hitler.
It came after CNN referred to Mr Trump’s unfounded claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him as the “Big Lie” – an expression also used by Hitler in Mein Kampf.
But the case was thrown out after US district judge Raag Singhal ruled that the term “does not give rise to a plausible inference that Trump advocates the persecution and genocide of Jews”.
Image: Letter from Alejandro Brito, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers who is based in Florida, to the BBC
Election campaign lawsuit
His election campaign in 2020 also sued the New York Times and the Washington Post over opinion pieces alleging ties between with Russia.
These cases were dismissed in 2021 and 2023, respectively.
Yet, Mr Trump has had more success in recent years.
ABC settlement
In 2024, Trump sued American broadcaster ABC and its news host George Stephanopoulos, after the anchor falsely referred to the president being found “liable for rape” in an interview.
Image: Donald Trump on stage with George Stephanopoulos. Pic: Reuters
In the civil case in question, he was actually found liable for sexual abuse and defamation – a verdict which Trump is appealing.
Given the high bar for proving defamation against public figures, experts were sceptical that he could win the lawsuit.
George Freeman, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center told CBS at the time: “I don’t know of any president who successfully sued a media company for defamation.”
Yet ABC, which is owned by Disney, agreed to settle, paying $15m (£11.4m) to Trump for his future presidential library, and a further $1m (£760,000) towards his legal fees.
Battle with CBS
In another lawsuit, the president demanded $20bn (£15.2bn) from CBS over an interview with his election rival Kamala Harris broadcast on 60 Minutes.
Image: Results pour in on election night during an event for Kamala Harris at Howard University, Washington. Photo: AP
His team accused the broadcaster of “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference” with its editing of the interview, saying it intended to “mislead the public and attempt to tip the scales” in the contest.
First Amendment attorney Charles Tobin of the law firm Ballard Spahr told CNN at the time: “This is a frivolous and dangerous attempt by a politician to control the news media.”
Yet they too settled out of court, with CBS’ parent company, Paramount Global, paying $16m (£12.1m) to end the legal dispute – again towards Trump’s future presidential library.
Trump vs Meta
Image: Pic: REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, also settled with the president to the tune of $25m (£19m).
That lawsuit came after he sued over the suspension of his accounts in the wake of the 6 January riots.
Why the recent spate?
While Mr Trump has made several threats to media organisations in recent years, it is not the first time he has done so.
According to Columbia Journalism Review, he threatened to sue a journalist at New York’s Village Voice as far back as 1979, and actually sued the Chicago Tribune in 1984.
That 1984 lawsuit, which came after Mr Trump took umbrage at a column by the paper’s award-winning architecture columnist criticising his plans for a huge tower block in New York City, was thrown out as an opinion by a judge.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
However, the number of lawsuits, and the size of his compensation demands, have increased of late. So what has changed?
“As president, Trump’s leverage has increased exponentially,” wrote media reporter Paul Farhi in Vanity Fair.
“It’s no coincidence that Disney and Meta have settled since Election Day, and Paramount has come to the table.”
Now that he’s turning his ire on the BBC, what will the outcome be?
Mr Freeman called his threat to the broadcaster “totally meaningless”, noting that he “has a long record of unsuccessful libel suits” intended to “threaten and scare media he doesn’t like”.
Can the BBC rely on that assessment?
With a deadline set for Friday, 10pm UK time, we may be about to find out.