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 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 President 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 the 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

Judge dismisses criminal cases against Trump critics James Comey and Letitia James

Published

on

By

Judge dismisses criminal cases against Trump critics James Comey and Letitia James

A judge has dismissed criminal cases against Donald Trump critics James Comey and Letitia James after finding that the prosecutor was illegally appointed.

Mr Comey is the former FBI director and Ms James is New York attorney general.

In his ruling, Judge Cameron Currie said: “All actions flowing from Ms. [Lindsey] Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.

“The Attorney General’s attempts to ratify Ms. Halligan’s actions were ineffective and are hereby set aside.”

The orders make Lindsey Halligan the latest Trump administration prosecutor to be disqualified because of the manner in which they were appointed.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

US

US hails ‘tremendous progress’ on Ukraine peace plan – but says negotiators ‘need more time’

Published

on

By

US hails 'tremendous progress' on Ukraine peace plan - but says negotiators 'need more time'

The US secretary of state has hailed a “tremendous amount of progress” on peace talks after the US and Ukraine delegations met in Geneva – but said that negotiators would “need more time”.

Marco Rubio said the meetings in Switzerland on Sunday have been “the most productive and meaningful” of the peace process so far.

He said the US was making “some changes” to the peace plan, seemingly based on Ukrainian suggestions, “in the hopes of further narrowing the differences and getting closer to something that both Ukraine and obviously the United States are very comfortable with”.

Mr Rubio struck an optimistic tone talking to the media after discussions but was light on the details, saying there was still work to be done.

US secretary of state Marco Rubio in Geneva after peace talks with Ukraine. Pic: Reuters
Image:
US secretary of state Marco Rubio in Geneva after peace talks with Ukraine. Pic: Reuters

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Analysis: Rubio strikes an optimistic tone – but is light on detail

“I don’t want to declare victory or finality here. There’s still some work to be done, but we are much further ahead today at this time than we were when we began this morning and where we were a week ago for certain,” Mr Rubio said.

He also stressed: “We just need more time than what we have today. I honestly believe we’ll get there.”

Sky News’ defence analyst Michael Clarke said on the initial US-Russian 28-point peace plan that it was Donald Trump against the world, with maybe only Moscow on his side.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Trump’s plan a ‘capitulation document’?

Mr Rubio praised the Ukrainian attitude towards the talks and said Mr Trump was “quite pleased” after he previously said in a social media post that Ukraine’s leaders had expressed “ZERO GRATITUDE” for US efforts.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in his nightly address on Sunday that there are signs that “President Trump’s team hears us”.

In a news release on Sunday evening, the White House said the day “marked a significant step forward”.

“Ukrainian representatives stated that, based on the revisions and clarifications presented today, they believe the current draft reflects their national interests and provides credible and enforceable mechanisms to safeguard Ukraine’s security in both the near and long term,” it claimed.

Despite diplomatic progress in Geneva the finish line remains a long way off


John Sparks

John Sparks

International correspondent

@sparkomat

We’ve witnessed a day of determined and decidedly frantic diplomacy in this well-heeled city.

Camera crews were perched on street corners and long convoys of black vehicles swept down Geneva’s throughfares as the Ukrainians worked hard to keep the Americans on side.

Secretary of state Marco Rubio did not want to go into details at a press “gaggle” held at the US Mission this evening, but he seemed to think they had made more progress in the last 96 hours than the previous 10 months combined.

The Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy also seemed satisfied enough, posting on Telegram that there were “signals President Trump’s team is hearing us” after a day of “numerous meetings and negotiations”.

That said, we are a long way from the finish line here – something Rubio acknowledged when he said that any proposal agreed here would have to be handed over to the Russians.

At that point, negotiations to stop the war would surely get tougher.

President Putin has shown little or no inclination to stop the conflict thus far.

This, then, is the most important reason the Ukrainians seem determined to keep the Americans on side.

European leaders have presented a counter proposal to the widely criticised US-Russian peace plan, with suggestions including a cap on Ukraine’s peacetime army and readmitting Moscow into the G8.

This will only take place if the plan is agreed to by the US, Russia and Ukraine, and the G7 signs off on the move. Russia was expelled after annexing Crimea in 2014.

The counter proposal also includes US guarantees to Ukraine that mirror NATO’s Article 5 – the idea that “an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against them all”.

Read more:
Who actually wrote US-Russian peace plan for Ukraine?
In full: Europe’s 28-point counter proposal to US-Russia plan

The initial peace plan was worked up by the White House and Kremlin without Ukraine’s involvement, and it acquiesces to many of Russia’s previous demands.

It covers a range of issues – from territorial concessions to reconstruction programmes, the future Ukrainian relationship with NATO and the EU, and educational reforms in both Ukraine and Russia.

US and Ukrainian officials are set to meet again today to continue work on the proposal.

It has also been reported that President Zelenskyy could travel to the US as early as this week to discuss the most sensitive aspects of the plan with President Trump.

Continue Reading

US

Who actually wrote US-Russian peace plan for Ukraine?

Published

on

By

Who actually wrote US-Russian peace plan for Ukraine?

Questions are being raised about the Russia-Ukraine peace plan, after US politicians suggested the proposal’s 28 points did not originate from Donald Trump’s administration but were put forward by Moscow.

Senators, critical of the US president’s approach to Ukraine, said they spoke with the US secretary of state Marco Rubio, who told them the plan is a “wish list” from the Russians and not a proposal offering Washington’s positions.

Ukraine war latest: Washington denies backing ‘Moscow wish list’

The US state department has called that account “blatantly false”, with Mr Rubio saying that the senators were mistaken and that Washington was responsible for the proposals.

The 28-point plan has surprised many for being so favourable to Moscow.

Explained: Trump’s peace plan in full

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

How Ukraine peace plan came about

Republican senator Mike Rounds is among those who have claimed the plan was not drafted by Washington.

“This administration was not responsible for this release in its current form,” he said at a security conference in Canada. “They want to utilise it as a starting point.”

Mr Rounds added: “It looked more like it was written in Russian to begin with.”

Independent senator Angus King said Mr Rubio told them the plan “was not the administration’s plan” but a “essentially the wish list of the Russians”.

The senators said they spoke to Mr Rubio after he contacted them while on his way to Geneva for talks on the plan.

According to the Reuters news agency, some US officials also said the plan contains material that the US secretary of state has previously rejected and neither he, nor anyone in the state department, was aware of the plan before it was announced.

These latest claims have added to growing confusion over who was involved in drawing up the 28 points.

European leader asks: ‘Who authored the plan?’

Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk has raised concerns about its origins. On Sunday, he wrote on X: “It would be good to know for sure who is the author of the plan and where was it created.”

In a post on X, Mr Rubio insisted that “the peace proposal was authored by the US… but it is also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine”.

A former adviser to Vladimir Putin had denied that Russia was behind the peace plan. Sergei Markov told Sky News “it is American” and the points were a “very good basis for diplomatic negotiation”.

Mr Markov insisted there were “some positive moods in Russia about it” but also accused Europe and Ukraine of wanting to continue the war, despite Russia unilaterally launching and pursuing a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Former Putin advisor challenged over 28-point peace plan

Read more from Sky News:
Peace plan scrutinised at G20
Ukraine issued with ‘surrender ultimatum’
Ukraine and Europe cannot reject plan

American special envoy Steve Witkoff and Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner met Kirill Dmitriev in Miami at the end of October to work on the proposals, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

Mr Dmitriev, who is a close ally of the Russian president, was blacklisted by the US government in 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Kirill Dmitriev and special envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg in April 2025. Pic: Kremlin Pool Photo/AP
Image:
Kirill Dmitriev and special envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg in April 2025. Pic: Kremlin Pool Photo/AP

Trump rows back on demands

The US president initially demanded that Ukraine accept the peace plan by Thursday. But he has since rowed back from that position, instead saying the proposal was not his final offer.

The plan currently on the table calls for major concessions by Kyiv, including ceding territory to Russia, pledging not to join NATO and abandoning certain weaponry.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has not rejected the proposals outright, but said he would not betray Ukraine’s interests. Meanwhile, Mr Putin has described the plan as the basis of a resolution to the conflict.

Separately, Senator Roger Wicker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been equally dismissive of the proposals.

“This so-called ‘peace plan’ has real problems, and I am highly sceptical it will achieve peace,” he said.

Continue Reading

Trending