Connect with us

Published

on

In years to come, it may become known simply as Chequers ’25.

But today’s summit between Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump, at the prime minister’s country retreat, has the potential to be a landmark moment in UK-US history.

There’s plenty of scope for it to go horribly wrong, of course: over Jeffrey Epstein, Sir Keir’s pledge to recognise Palestine, the president’s lukewarm support for Ukraine, the Chagos Islands sell-off, or free speech.

Trump state visit live – read the latest

But on the other hand, it could be a triumph for the so-called “special relationship” – as well as relations between these two unlikely allies – with deals on trade and tariffs and an improbably blossoming bromance.

Either way, this Chequers summit – on the president’s historic second state visit to the UK – could turn out to be one of the most notable one-to-one meetings between PM and president in 20th and 21st century history.

Sir Keir and Mr Trump have already met several times, most recently at The Donald’s golf courses in Scotland in late July and, before that, memorably at the White House in February.

Donald Trump and Keir Starmer wave as they board Air Force One on a previous trip. Pic: AP
Image:
Donald Trump and Keir Starmer wave as they board Air Force One on a previous trip. Pic: AP

It was then that the PM theatrically pulled King Charles’s invitation for this week’s visit out of his inside pocket in a spectacular stunt surely masterminded by the “Prince of Darkness”, spin doctor-turned-ambassador (until last week, anyway) Peter Mandelson.

And over the years, there have been some remarkable and historic meetings and relationships, good and bad, between UK prime ministers and American presidents.

From Churchill and Roosevelt to Eden and Eisenhower, from Macmillan and JFK to Wilson and Johnson, from Thatcher and Reagan, to Blair and Bush, and from Cameron and Obama… to Starmer and Trump, perhaps?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘History’ that binds the UK and US

A brief history of relationships between PMs and presidents

Throughout UK-US history, there have been many examples of a good relationship and close bond between a Labour prime minister and a Republican president. And vice versa.

Also, it has not always been rosy between prime ministers and presidents of the two sister parties. There have been big fallings out: over Suez, Vietnam and the Caribbean island of Grenada.

Leading up to this Chequers summit, the omens have not been good.

First, the PM was forced to sack his vital link between Downing Street and the Oval Office, Lord Mandelson, over his friendship with Epstein.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump meets Starmer: What can we expect?

Second, the president arrived in the UK to a barrage of criticism from London mayor Sir Sadiq Khan, who accused him of doing more than anyone else to encourage the intolerant far right across the globe.

And third, in a video-link to the “Unite the Kingdom” march in London last weekend, one-time Trump ally Elon Musk called for a dissolution of parliament and a change of government and appeared to encourage violent protest.

Churchill and FDR

Churchill and FDR at the White House in 1941. Pic: AP
Image:
Churchill and FDR at the White House in 1941. Pic: AP

Back in the mid-20th century, the godfather of the “special relationship” was wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill, though it was 1946 before he first coined the phrase in a speech in the US, in which he also spoke of the “iron curtain”.

It was in 1941 that Churchill held one of the most significant meetings with a US president, Franklin D Roosevelt, at a Washington conference to plot the defeat of Germany after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour.

Churchill arrived in Washington in December after a rough 10-day voyage on a Royal Navy battleship and stayed three weeks, spending Christmas in the White House and on Boxing Day becoming the first UK PM to address Congress.

The close bond between Churchill and Roosevelt was described as a friendship that saved the world. It was even claimed one reason the pair got on famously was that they were both renowned cigar smokers.

Churchill and Truman

Churchill and Truman catch a train from Washington in 1946. Pic: AP
Image:
Churchill and Truman catch a train from Washington in 1946. Pic: AP

After the war ended, Churchill’s “special relationship” speech, describing the alliance between the UK and US, was delivered at Westminster College, in Fulton, Missouri in March 1946.

The speech was introduced by president Harry Truman, a Democrat, with whom Churchill had attended the Potsdam Conference in 1945 to negotiate the terms of ending the war.

These two were also close friends and would write handwritten letters to each other and address one another as Harry and Winston. Mr Truman was also the only US president to visit Churchill at Chartwell, his family home.

Eden and Eisenhower

Eden and Eisenhower shake hands at the conclusion of their three-day conference in 1956. Pic: AP
Image:
Eden and Eisenhower shake hands at the conclusion of their three-day conference in 1956. Pic: AP

But the transatlantic cosiness came to an abrupt end in the 1950s, when Churchill’s Conservative successor Anthony Eden fell out badly with the Republican president Dwight Eisenhower over the Suez Crisis.

Mr Eden did visit Mr Eisenhower in Washington in January 1956, and the official record of the meeting describes the discussion as focussing on “policy differences and Cold War problems”.

Macmillan and JFK

Harold Macmillan and John F Kennedy at Andrews Air Force Base. Pic: AP
Image:
Harold Macmillan and John F Kennedy at Andrews Air Force Base. Pic: AP

But in the early 1960s, a Conservative prime minister and a Democrat president with seemingly nothing in common, the stuffy and diffident Harold Macmillan, and the charismatic John F Kennedy, repaired the damage.

They were credited with rescuing the special relationship after the rupture of the Suez Crisis, at a time of high tensions around the world: the Berlin Wall, the Cuban missile crisis, and the threat of nuclear weapons.

The two leaders exchanged handwritten notes, as well as Christmas and birthday cards. The Macmillans visited the Kennedys twice at the White House, in 1961 and 1962 – the second described in the US as a “momentous” meeting on the Cuban crisis.

The relationship was abruptly cut short in 1963 by Supermac’s demise prompted by the Profumo scandal, and JFK’s assassination in Dallas. But after her husband’s death, Jacqueline Kennedy was said to have had a father-daughter relationship with Macmillan, who was said to have been enchanted with her.

Wilson and LBJ

Johnson meeting with Wilson. Pic: Glasshouse Images/Shutterstock
Image:
Johnson meeting with Wilson. Pic: Glasshouse Images/Shutterstock

After JFK, the so-called special relationship cooled once again – and under a Labour prime minister and Democrat president – when Harold Wilson rejected pressure from Lyndon B Johnson to send British troops to Vietnam.

Mr Wilson became prime minister in 1964, just two months after LBJ sent US troops. His first overseas trip was to the White House, in December 1964, and the PM returned to tell his cabinet: “Lyndon Johnson is begging me even to send a bagpipe band to Vietnam.”

Thatcher and Reagan

Thatcher at Reagan's 83rd birthday celebrations. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Thatcher at Reagan’s 83rd birthday celebrations. Pic: Reuters

And even though Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were ideological soulmates, Thatcher was furious when she wasn’t consulted before the Americans invaded Grenada in 1983 to topple a Marxist regime.

Even worse, according to Mrs Thatcher’s allies, a year earlier, Reagan had stayed neutral during the Falklands War. Reagan said he couldn’t understand why two US allies were arguing over “that little ice-cold bunch of land down there”.

Thatcher and Reagan became firm friends. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Thatcher and Reagan became firm friends. Pic: Reuters

But their relationship didn’t just survive, it flourished, including at one memorable visit to the presidential retreat at Camp David in 1984, where Reagan famously drove Mrs T around in a golf buggy.

They would also memorably dance together at White House balls.

Blair and Bush

Blair hosts Bush in Durham in 2003. Pic: PA
Image:
Blair hosts Bush in Durham in 2003. Pic: PA

Camp David was also where, in 2001, Republican president George W Bush and Labour’s Sir Tony Blair embarked on the defining mission of his premiership: the Iraq War. It was to prove to be an historic encounter.

The war was the turning point of Sir Tony’s decade in Number 10. He was branded a liar over claims about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”, he was vilified by the Labour left, and it was the beginning of the end for him.

And to add to the suspicion among Sir Tony’s critics that he was Mr Bush’s poodle, in 2006 at a G8 summit in St Petersburg – that wouldn’t happen now – a rogue microphone picked up the president calling, “Yo, Blair! How are you doing?”

Cameron and Obama

Cameron and Obama serve food at a barbecue in the garden of 10 Downing Street. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Cameron and Obama serve food at a barbecue in the garden of 10 Downing Street. Pic: Reuters

Some years later, the Tory prime minister sometimes called the “heir to Blair”, David Cameron, bonded over burgers with the Democrat president Barack Obama, serving a BBQ lunch to military families in the Downing Street garden. They also played golf at the exclusive Grove resort in 2016.

They seemed unlikely allies: Obama, the first African-American president, and Cameron, the 19th old Etonian prime minister. It was claimed they had a “transatlantic bromance” in office. “Yes, he sometimes calls me bro,” Lord Cameron admitted.

But not everything went well.

The Tory PM persuaded Mr Obama to help the Remain campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum, when he claimed the UK would be “at the back of the queue” on trade deals with the US, if it left the EU. It backfired, of course.

Now it’s Sir Keir Starmer’s turn to tread a delicate and potentially hazardous political tightrope as he entertains the latest – and most unconventional – US president.

The greatest dangers for Sir Keir will be a news conference in the afternoon, in the gardens, if the weather permits.

Good luck, as they say, with that.

Before then, there’s the potential for what the Americans call a “pool spray”, one of those impromptu, rambling and unpredictable Q&As we’ve seen so many times in the Oval Office.

For Sir Keir, what could possibly go wrong?

Chequers ’25 could be memorable and notable, like so many previous meetings between a PM and a president. But not necessarily for the right reasons for this UK prime minister.

Continue Reading

US

US accused of ‘inventing a war’ as it moves largest aircraft carrier to South America

Published

on

By

US ramps up 'drug boats' operation by sending in aircraft carrier to region

The US has announced it is sending an aircraft carrier to the waters off South America as it ramps up an operation to target alleged drug smuggling boats.

The Pentagon said in a statement that the USS Gerald R Ford would be deployed to the region, including the Caribbean Sea, to “bolster US capacity to detect, monitor, and disrupt illicit actors and activities that compromise the safety and prosperity of the United States homeland and our security in the Western Hemisphere”.

Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro told state media that the US was “inventing a new eternal war”.

The vessel is the US Navy’s largest aircraft carrier. It is currently deployed in the Mediterranean alongside three destroyers, and the group are expected to take around one week to make the journey.

There are already eight US Navy ships in the central and South American region, along with a nuclear-powered submarine, adding up to about 6,000 sailors and marines, according to officials.

It came as the US secretary of war claimed that six “narco-terrorists” had been killed in a strike on an alleged drug smuggling boat in the Caribbean Sea overnight.

A still from footage purporting to show the boat seconds before the airstrike,  posted by US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on X
Image:
A still from footage purporting to show the boat seconds before the airstrike, posted by US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on X

Pete Hegseth said his military had bombed a vessel which he claimed was operated by Tren de Aragua – a Venezuelan gang that was designated a terror group by Washington in February.

Writing on X, he claimed that the boat was involved in “illicit narcotics smuggling” and was transiting along a “known narco-trafficking route” when it was struck during the night.

All six men on board the boat, which was in international waters, were killed and no US forces were harmed, he said.

Ten vessels have now been bombed in recent weeks, killing more than 40 people.

Mr Hegseth added: “If you are a narco-terrorist smuggling drugs in our hemisphere, we will treat you like we treat al Qaeda. Day or NIGHT, we will map your networks, track your people, hunt you down, and kill you.”

While he did not provide any evidence that the vessel was carrying drugs, he did share a 20-second video that appeared to show a boat being hit by a projectile before exploding.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Footage of a previous US strike on a suspected drugs boat earlier this week

Speaking during a White House news conference last week, Donald Trump argued that the campaign would help tackle the US’s opioid crisis.

“Every boat that we knock out, we save 25,000 American lives. So every time you see a boat, and you feel badly you say, ‘Wow, that’s rough’. It is rough, but if you lose three people and save 25,000 people,” he said.

Read more:
Survivors reported after boat strike
US destroys ‘drug smuggling submarine’

Analysis: Is the US about to invade Venezuela?

It’s a question that’s got more relevant – and more urgent – over the last 24 hours.

The US government has just deployed the world’s largest aircraft carrier and its associated battleships to the Caribbean, just off the coast of Venezuela.

So: what’s going on?

Well, on the face of it, it’s a drugs war. For weeks now, the Trump administration has been using the US military to “dismantle transnational criminal organisations and counter narco terrorism in the defence of the homeland”.

Basically: stopping the drugs supply into America.

Dealing with the demand might actually be more effective as a strategy, but that’s another story.

Donald Trump’s focus is to hit the supply countries and to hit them hard – and this is what that has looked like: drones and missiles taking out boats said to be carrying drugs from places like Venezuela into the US.

We can’t know for sure that these are drugs boats or if the people are guilty of anything, because the US government won’t tell us who the people are.

But alongside this, something bigger has been going on: a massive build-up of US troops in the Caribbean, over 6,000 sailors and marines are there.

Here’s the thing: an aircraft carrier is not remotely suited to stopping drug smuggling.

However, it is a vital element of any planned ground or air war.

Trump is focused on stopping the drugs, yes, but is there actually a wider objective here: regime change?

He has been clear in his belief in spheres of influence around the world – and his will and want to control and dominate the Western hemisphere.

Influence domination over Venezuela could fix the drug problem for sure, but much more too.

The world’s largest oil reserves? Yes, they’re in Venezuela.

On Thursday, appearing at a press conference with Mr Hegseth, Mr Trump said that it was necessary to kill the alleged smugglers, because if they were arrested they would only return to transport drugs “again and again and again”.

“They don’t fear that, they have no fear,” he told reporters.

The attacks at sea would soon be followed by operations on land against drug smuggling cartels, Mr Trump claimed.

“We’re going to kill them,” he added. “They’re going to be, like, dead.”

Some Democratic politicians have expressed concerns that the strikes risk dragging the US into a war with Venezuela because of their proximity to the South American country’s coast.

Others have condemned the attacks as extrajudicial killings that would not stand up in a court of law.

Jim Himes, a member of the House of Representatives, told CBS News earlier this month: “They are illegal killings because the notion that the United States – and this is what the administration says is their justification – is involved in an armed conflict with any drug dealers, any Venezuelan drug dealers, is ludicrous.”

He claimed that Congress had been told “nothing” about who was on the boats and how they were identified as a threat.

Continue Reading

US

Child killer executed in Tennessee ‘showed signs of life’ two minutes after his ‘death’

Published

on

By

Child killer executed in Tennessee 'showed signs of life' two minutes after his 'death'

A convicted child killer executed in Tennessee showed signs of “sustained cardiac activity” two minutes after he was pronounced dead, his lawyer has claimed.

Byron Black, who shot dead his girlfriend Angela Clay and her two daughters, aged six and nine, in a jealous rage in 1988, was executed in August by a lethal injection.

Alleged issues about his case were raised on Friday as part of a lawsuit challenging the US state‘s lethal injection policies, amid claims they violate both federal and state constitutional bans on cruel and unusual punishment.

The latest proceedings in Nashville were held to consider whether attorneys representing death row inmates in the lawsuit will be allowed to depose key people involved in carrying out executions in Tennessee.

The court heard that concerns had been raised before the execution that Black was being put to death with a working defibrillator implanted in his chest.

There were fears that the device would shock his heart when the lethal chemicals took effect.

The Death Penalty Information Center, which provides data on such matters, said it was unaware of any similar cases.

Seven media witnesses said Black appeared to be in discomfort during the execution. He looked around the room as the execution began, and could be heard sighing and breathing heavily, the AP news agency reported at the time.

An electrocardiogram monitoring his heart recorded cardiac activity after he was pronounced dead, his lawyer Kelley Henry told a judge on Friday.

Read more from Sky News:
Executed man took at least 15 minutes to die

US ramps up ‘drug boats’ operation

Ms Henry, who is leading a group of federal public defenders representing death row inmates in the US state, said only the people who were there would be able to answer the question of what went wrong during Black’s execution.

“At one point, the blanket was pulled down to expose the IV,” she told the court.

“Why? Did the IV come out? Is that the reason that Mr Black exclaimed ‘it’s hurting so bad’? Is the EKG (electrocardiogram) correct?”

A full trial in the case is scheduled to be heard in April.

Continue Reading

US

Pentagon accepts $130m donation to help pay the military during government shutdown

Published

on

By

Pentagon accepts 0m donation to help pay the military during government shutdown

The Pentagon has confirmed it has accepted an anonymous $130m (£98m) gift to help pay members of the military during the government shutdown.

President Donald Trump announced the donation at the White House on Thursday, calling the donor a “patriot” and “friend of mine,” but withholding his name, saying they did not want recognition.

Mr Trump said: “He called us the other day and he said, ‘I’d like to contribute any shortfall you have because of the Democrat shutdown. I’d like to contribute, personally contribute, any shortfall you have with the military, because I love the military and I love the country’ … And today, he sent us a check for $130 million”.

The shutdown is on track to become one of the longest federal closures ever. Pic: AP
Image:
The shutdown is on track to become one of the longest federal closures ever. Pic: AP

The Pentagon confirmed it had accepted the donation on Thursday “under its general gift acceptance authority.”

“The donation was made on the condition that it be used to offset the cost of service members’ salaries and benefits,” Sean Parnell, chief spokesman for the Pentagon, said in a statement.

“We are grateful for this donor’s assistance after Democrats opted to withhold pay from troops.”

The government shutdown is now approaching its fifth week, and is on track to become one of the longest federal closures ever.

More on Donald Trump

Neither Republicans, who have control of the House, Senate and White House, nor Democrats, in the minority, are willing to budge in their broader stand-off over health care funding.

Explained: What is a shutdown and who does it impact?

On Thursday, the Senate failed to advance a GOP bill that would have provided pay for some federal workers, and an alternative offered by the Democrats to pay all federal workers also failed.

Although a large sum, the $130m gift amounts to just a small contribution toward the billions needed to cover service member pay.

The Trump administration told Congress last week that it used $6.5bn to cover military pay.

The next payday is due within the week, and it is unclear if the administration will again move money around to ensure the military does not go without pay.

The Trump administration diverted $8bn from military research and development funds to pay troops on time.

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

Ethical concerns have been raised over the donation.

A spokesman for Senator Chris Coons, the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defence, said the anonymous nature of the donation raised concerns.

“Using anonymous donations to fund our military raises troubling questions of whether our own troops are at risk of literally being bought and paid for by foreign powers,” the spokesman said.

Pentagon policy says authorities “must consult with their appropriate ethics official before accepting such a gift valued in excess of $10,000 to determine whether the donor is involved in any claims, procurement actions, litigation, or other particular matters involving the Department that must be considered prior to gift acceptance.”

Continue Reading

Trending