International

Support builds for Donald Trump to address UK Parliament despite public opposition

Friday, 2 May 2025 12:12AM UTC

Despite a petition with over 46,000 signatures and 63% public opposition, momentum against Donald Trump's potential speech to the UK Parliament is waning as key political figures appear supportive of the historic visit prompted by Labour leader Keir Starmer’s invitation.

Donald Trump's potential address to the UK Parliament is poised to receive support, as indications suggest that efforts to prevent the speech by some Members of Parliament (MPs) have lost momentum. This follows an invitation extended by Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, during his State Visit to the White House in February, marking a significant diplomatic overture to the United States.

The proposal for Trump to speak has faced opposition, manifesting through a petition that has garnered over 46,000 signatures, with detractors arguing that it would be "completely inappropriate" for him to address Parliament. While there has been considerable public dissent reflected in recent polls—particularly a YouGov survey showing that 63 per cent of British respondents oppose the visit—the tangible political pushback appears less formidable. A motion aimed at banning Trump from addressing Parliament has only received 19 endorsements since being tabled a week ago. In comparison, similar motions in 2017 and 2019 attracted 206 and 106 signatures, respectively, including support from prominent figures like current minister David Lammy.

Speaker of the House of Commons Lindsay Hoyle is not expected to reject any request from Trump, barring significant opposition from MPs. The approval process for such addresses involves a trio of ‘gatekeepers’—the Commons Speaker, the Lord Speaker, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, represented by Black Rod. Discussions around Trump's visit have been reignited following his recent dispute with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office and controversial remarks concerning potential territorial annexations and criticism of free speech in Europe.

Julian Smith, a former Cabinet minister from the Conservative Party, expressed his viewpoint in an interview with MailOnline, stating, "The idea that Parliament should have sought to stop President Trump's ability to speak to MPs directly is a joke. He has won an historic election; he is both dynamic and controversial." He articulated that part of an MP's role is to maintain robust ties with the US, asserting that it is crucial for the UK to support its government in fostering this relationship.

Historically, Trump has had a contentious relationship with Parliament, having previously been barred from delivering a speech in Westminster by former Speaker John Bercow, who posited that such addresses are an "earned honour" rather than an "automatic right." In contrast, former President Barack Obama successfully addressed Parliament in 2011, while Joe Biden did not deliver a similar speech during his state visit.

It has been understood that an official request for Trump to address the Houses of Parliament has yet to be submitted. A spokesperson for Parliament indicated that any such request would be evaluated in the standard manner, with decisions ultimately resting with the Speakers of both Houses. In recent developments, Trump has referred to King Charles as a "friend" and hinted that a potential date for his visit could be set for September.

During his previous term in office, Trump visited key royal residences such as Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, where he met Queen Elizabeth II. As deliberations surrounding his potential address continue, the political landscape remains dynamic, reflecting broader public sentiments and parliamentary practices.

Source: Noah Wire Services

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score: 8

Notes: Narrative references recent developments (e.g., petitions, polls, and parliamentary motions), but lacks specific dates for key events. Mentions 'recent developments' regarding Trump's potential visit date (September), suggesting moderate freshness. No clear evidence of recycled content from older articles.

Quotes check

Score: 7

Notes: Julian Smith's quote appears original to this narrative, citing an interview with MailOnline. No earlier references found, increasing confidence in originality. However, without direct access to the interview transcript or corroborating reports, verification is incomplete.

Source reliability

Score: 5

Notes: Narrative originates from the Daily Mail, a publication with mixed reliability due to occasional sensationalism. While it cites verifiable entities (e.g., MPs, parliamentary spokespersons), independent verification of claims (e.g., petition figures) would strengthen reliability.

Plausability check

Score: 8

Notes: Claims align with known practices (e.g., parliamentary approval processes for foreign leaders' addresses). Opposition figures (e.g., David Lammy) and historical precedents (Obama's 2011 speech) corroborate plausibility. Lack of an official request for Trump's speech introduces minor uncertainty.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM

Summary: The narrative is plausible given historical precedents and current political dynamics, but reliance on a single outlet (Daily Mail) and unverified quotes limits certainty. Freshness and plausibility scores are strong, but source reliability requires caution. Further verification of petition figures and interview sources would enhance confidence.

Donald Trump
UK Parliament
Keir Starmer
US-UK relations
Political controversy

More on this