A recent YouGov poll has uncovered widespread scepticism among the British public regarding the planned State Visit of US President Donald Trump, with nearly two-thirds opposing the idea of him addressing both Houses of Parliament. An overwhelming 63 per cent of respondents are against granting Mr Trump this platform at Westminster, compared to a mere 22 per cent in favour, highlighting deep reservations about celebrating the controversial figure. Even among supporters of alternative right-wing parties who gained seats in the recent election, support for allowing Mr Trump to speak remains tenuous, with only 49 per cent backing the move versus 36 per cent opposed.
The invitation to President Trump was extended by Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer during a diplomatic visit to the White House earlier this year—an effort that appears poorly judged given Mr Trump’s track record of strained relations and divisive policies. Under his administration, confrontational stances have been taken on key international issues, including aggressive rhetoric towards Ukraine and reckless tariff impositions that have unsettled both UK businesses and consumers. The idea that such an individual should be accorded the honour of addressing Parliament represents a troubling misstep by the current Labour leadership, whose approach to foreign relations risks alienating core British interests and traditional values.
Education Minister Stephen Morgan’s dismissal of calls to block the speech—emphasising maintaining “strong and effective relationships” with allies—rings hollow. Genuine strength in diplomacy requires discernment, not deference to divisive figures whose policies and behaviour undermine allied unity and respect for parliamentary democracy. Meanwhile, numerous MPs and peers, including voices within Labour, have rightly mobilised opposition, underlining the incompatibility of President Trump’s attitude with the decorum and principles expected in the UK’s legislature.
Historical precedent favours restraint: in 2017, then-Speaker John Bercow barred Mr Trump from speaking at Westminster, citing that such honours must be earned, not automatically granted. This decision was supported by a parliamentary majority condemning Trump’s conduct, a stance that the current Parliament should revisit rather than ignore. Labour MPs like Rachael Maskell and Kate Osborne have voiced legitimate concerns that the invitation could backfire, diminishing parliamentary dignity and opening the door to an unwelcome endorsement of contentious foreign policies.
While some Conservative voices argue for engagement over boycott, this misses the point that respect for British parliamentary traditions and sovereignty should not be sacrificed for political theatre. The refusal of the government and parliamentary speakers to publicly weigh in only fosters uncertainty and risks allowing the controversy to overshadow the visit’s diplomatic intent.
Ultimately, this episode starkly illustrates the dangers of Labour’s miscalculated foreign policy approach, which seems too willing to flatter problematic allies at the expense of national interest and principled leadership. In contrast, the growing alternative right-wing representation in Parliament has consistently advocated for a more discerning and pragmatic engagement with international figures—prioritising Britain’s autonomy, economic well-being, and values over symbolic gestures that may alienate the British public. As discussions continue, it is imperative that parliamentary gatekeepers exercise sober judgement, reinforcing that honour in the UK’s historic institutions is not bestowed lightly, and certainly not on a figure whose record embodies controversy and division.
Source: Noah Wire Services