Trump-Starmer talks could be landmark moment – and join pantheon of UK-US summits
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
“Drill, baby, drill” was Donald Trump’s campaign pledge – and he’s following through with a proposal to expand fossil fuel production, which environmentalists say would have devastating consequences.
The Trump administration has tabled a plan to open federal waters off the coasts of California, Florida, and Alaska to oil and gas drilling for the first time in decades – including areas that have never been touched.
A total of one billion acres of water would be offered for lease under the proposal. That’s equivalent to more than half the total land mass of the US.
While the rest of the Western world is striving to move away from fossil fuels, the US appears to be gravitating back towards them, with the administration describing climate change as a “hoax,” “a scam,” and a “con job”.
In Huntington Beach – a coastal community in California that calls itself “Surf City USA” – a huge oil spill in 2021 shut down a miles-long stretch of the coastline, killing wildlife and soiling the sand.
From the beach, where surfers lay out alongside tourists and dog walkers, you can see Platform Esther, a hulking oil rig built in 1965 that ceased production in August this year. Sea lions hug the metal pillars on the rig and dozens of birds perch on the platform.
‘What we have here is irreplaceable’
Pete Stauffer, ocean protection manager at the Surfrider Foundation, said: “Here in California, we depend on a clean and healthy coastal environment – whether it’s coastal tourism, whether it’s fisheries, or local businesses and jobs.
“All these things are tied to what we have here, which is really an outstanding marine ecosystem.
“No disrespect to Mickey Mouse, but you can build another theme park. What we have here is irreplaceable. Why would you put that at risk?”
As a state, California views itself as a leader on climate action. A massive spill off the coast of Santa Barbara sparked the modern environmental movement.
‘We need as much oil as possible’
But the Trump administration says more oil drilling will help make the country energy independent, bringing new jobs and reducing petrol prices. That messaging has resonated with some here.
Johnny Long is a surfer who lives in Huntington Beach. “Drill, baby, drill,” he says, when I ask about Trump’s plans for more offshore drilling. “We need as much oil as possible. It’s right below us. We need to take it and extract it and bring the gas prices down, it’s absolutely fantastic.”
I ask about concerns that it will be detrimental to the local environment and beyond.
“I’d say phoeey on that,” Johnny responds. “It’s ridiculous. Climate change is a hoax.”
Read more climate news:
What did COP30 achieve?
How final deal was reached
Johnny Long
But others vehemently disagree – including Linda from nearby Seal Beach: “It’s so bad for the environment. It’s already bad enough, you know, and they’re gonna drill, and what happens when they drill? They always have accidents because people are human and accidents happen.
“Trump and his goonies don’t care about the environment, all they care about is money.”
The president’s push to expand fossil fuel production coincided with the UN climate conference. For the first time in the summit’s history, the US didn’t send a delegation.
Critics say the snub shows a disregard for how future generations will be affected by the decisions the White House is making right now.
The revenge tour has come off the rails.
Donald Trump had long promised retribution against his political enemies, but – to coin a phrase used around the White House – he’s f****ed around and found out that it doesn’t fly so easily through the courts.
His mistake was in choosing a pilot unable to fly the plane.
Lindsey Halligan is the lawyer who took the job of Trump-enforcer when others, better qualified, turned it down.
The prosecution of Trump’s adversaries would have been the job of Erik Siebert, US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, but he gave it a body swerve.
He had declined to prosecute the case against Letitia James, the New York attorney-general who successfully prosecuted the Trump organisation for business fraud.
Siebert concluded there were not sufficient grounds to prosecute, which didn’t please the president, and Seibert quit before he was pushed.
A number of career prosecutors were similarly reluctant to take the case, leaving Trump checking availability.
That’s when he turned to Lindsey Halligan, an insurance lawyer by trade.
Her work experience didn’t necessarily suit the job brief – the prosecutor with the highest of profiles had no prosecutorial experience.
In pursuing the cases against Comey and James, she had to present evidence before a grand jury, something she hadn’t done before.
Letitia James and James Comey have had criminal charges against them dismissed. Pics: Reuters
If that wasn’t ideal, that wasn’t all.
Something else Halligan didn’t have was the legal ability to do the job. Her appointment violated laws limiting the ability of the justice department to install top prosecutors.
It was an elementary error that didn’t pass by Judge Cameron Currie, who called it a “defective appointment”.
In setting aside the indictments against Comey and James, she wrote: “I conclude that all actions flowing from Ms Halligan’s defective appointment… constitute unlawful exercises of executive power.”
The US Department of Justice can appeal the move, so Comey and James haven’t reached road’s end.
Read more from Sky News:
US hails ‘tremendous progress’ on Ukraine peace plan
Trump changes tack on Marjorie Taylor Greene
But it’s a significant boost for both, and a significant blow for Trump.
He is the president in pursuit of sworn enemies, which his critics characterise as a weaponisation of the justice system.
Those same critics will point to the haste and impropriety on display as evidence of it, and take heart from a system offering a robust resistance.
Donald Trump appears undeterred. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said: “The facts of the indictments against Comey and James have not changed, and this will not be the final word on this matter.”
Letitia James is charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. James Comey was charged with making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation.
Trump fired Comey in 2017, while he was overseeing an investigation into alleged Russian interference in the Trump 2016 campaign.
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
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
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.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024