King Charles III’s upcoming state visit to D.C. has been heralded by President Donald Trump as a chance to repair frayed U.K.-U.S. relations, but some British lawmakers are calling for it to be canceled. 

Set to start on April 27, the four-day trip will see Charles and Camilla enjoy a state dinner at the White House while also traveling to Virginia and New York as they honor the 250th anniversary of American independence.

It’s the first U.S. state visit made by a British Monarch since Queen Elizabeth II was hosted by President George Bush in 2007, but the backdrop of the trip is wrought with geopolitical tensions.

The fallout of the Iran war has splintered U.K.-U.S. relations and fractured the once-prosperous alliance between Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Trump has directed a series of complaints and warnings toward the U.K. on account of Starmer refusing to get actively involved in the conflict. This week, he threatened to impose a “big tariff” on the U.K. if it doesn't drop its digital services tax on U.S. tech companies.

The threat renewed the unease many British lawmakers have expressed over the timing of Charles’ visit.

Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, on Friday said: “Why is Keir Starmer rewarding this bullying behaviour with a state visit from the King?”

He previously appealed for Starmer, the leader of the ruling Labour Party, to recall the trip, citing the Iran war and the resulting increase in energy prices impacting U.K. homes.

“Keir Starmer should advise the King that the state visit to the U.S. scheduled for April should be called off. At a time when Trump has launched an illegal war that is devastating the Middle East and pushing up energy bills for British families, it’s clear this visit should not go ahead,” Davey urged in March.

He argued that a state visit from Charles “would be seen as yet another huge diplomatic coup for President Trump” and that such a reward “should not be given to someone who repeatedly insults and damages our country.”

Davey renewed his efforts to have the trip reconsidered last week, after Trump, while referring to the “sad” state of London and Washington relations, warned that the U.K.-U.S. trade deal reached in 2025—which was celebrated at the time for its “reciprocity and fairness”—could be changed.

“This must be the last straw. Surely the Prime Minister can't send our King to meet a man who treats our country like a mafia boss running a protection racket,” Davey said in an address to parliament.

Starmer, in response, reaffirmed the broader significance of the U.S.-U.K. relationship and expressed the importance of the King’s trip.

"The purpose of the visit is to mark the 250th anniversary of relations and independence of the U.S.,” he said. “The monarchy is an important reminder of the long-standing bonds and enduring relationship between our two countries which are far greater than anyone who occupies any particular office at any particular time.”

Still, Davey is far from the only British lawmaker to raise issue with Charles' trip.

With the U.K.-U.S. relationship under increasing strain, here’s what else to know about the state visit, its purpose, and the lawmakers who are opposed to it going ahead.

What is the purpose of King Charles' state visit?

The visit will mark the King’s first state visit to the U.S. since he ascended the throne in 2022 and is intended to commemorate the 250th anniversary of American independence.

It’s “an opportunity to recognize the shared history of our two Nations,” Buckingham Palace said.

Trump, a long-time admirer of the royal family, described the trip as a “momentous occasion” and said he plans to host a “beautiful” banquet dinner at the White House.

The King is also expected to address a joint session of Congress on April 28—the second time a British monarch has done so, following Queen Elizabeth II’s address in 1991.

Evie Aspinall, director of the British Foreign Policy Group, tells TIME that “given Trump has a kind of strong affinity for the royal family” the visit represents “a unique opportunity to strengthen the bilateral relationship at a moment where it is fracturing.”

Trump echoed this sentiment when asked recently if the royal visit could help repair the historically strong relationship, answering: “Absolutely, the answer is yes.”

"I know him well, I've known him for years," Trump said of the King. "He's a brave man, and he's a great man.”

The trip will also include a visit to New York where Charles is expected to attend a wreath laying at the 9/11 memorial, as well as a stop in Virginia, where the royals are set to meet Appalachian and Indigenous communities.

Why are some lawmakers concerned about King Charles' trip—and what have they said?

Against the backdrop of the Iran war and Trump’s continued criticism of the U.K., some lawmakers have argued the visit poses more risks than benefits.

Members of the Liberal Democrats have been the most vocal, with 29 MPs calling on Starmer to cancel the visit “given President Trump’s ongoing war and disparaging remarks about the U.K. and other allies who were not consulted on the decision to go to war.”

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has also raised grave concerns.

“The King should be going nowhere near Donald Trump at this time. The truth is, Keir Starmer has waved this visit through because he’s scared to stand up to this rogue President,” he argued

Emily Thornberry, a senior figure in Starmer’s Labour party, is quoted as telling BBC Radio 4 that, given the war, it was worth questioning whether it would be appropriate to proceed with the visit or to “delay it.”

"If it was to go ahead, it would go ahead against a backdrop of a war and that, I think, is quite difficult—and the last thing that we want to do is to have their majesties embarrassed," she said in March.

Aspinall acknowledges that Trump is “a very volatile character,” but warns that canceling the visit could have had broader consequences.

“It would be devastating for the U.K.-U.S. relationship if King Charles were to pull out,” she tells TIME. “Whilst other leaders might deal with it differently, almost certainly you would see very volatile comments about the U.K., threats around tariffs, and undermining U.K. security.”

Public opinion, meanwhile, remains divided.

A YouGov poll published in late March found that 49% of Britons oppose the visit, compared with 33% in favor.

How the Iran war has strained relations between the U.K. and U.S.

Relations between the U.K. and the U.S. began to deteriorate following Starmer’s initial refusal to allow U.S. forces to access British bases for their initial strikes against Iran.

While the U.K. later permitted the use of bases for defensive purposes, Starmer maintained that Britain would not be actively involved in the war.

Those decisions have drawn the wrath of Trump, who described Starmer as “no Winston Churchill” and accused him of wanting to “join wars after we've already won.”

Starmer, in turn, has stepped up his criticism of Trump, saying he is “fed up” with the global economic instability caused by his decisions, while other senior U.K. officials have accused the Administration of entering the Iran war without a “clear exit plan.”

The British Prime Minister also emphasized this week that, despite Trump’s critical remarks, he will not be "diverted or deflected" from acting in, what he believes to be, the “best national interest" of the U.K.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez dismissed reports that the U.S. is floating the idea of suspending Spain from the NATO alliance.

An internal Pentagon email reportedly suggested various ways the Administration could punish NATO allies it believes let the U.S. down by not actively supporting operations in the Iran war, according to Reuters.

"We do not work with emails," Sánchez told reporters when asked about the matter at the European Union summit in Cyprus on Friday. "We work with official documents and positions taken, in this case, by the government of the United States."

Reaffirming Spain’s opposition to the Iran war, which he has repeatedly referred to as “illegal,” Sánchez added: "The position of the government of Spain is clear: absolute collaboration with the allies, but always within the framework of international legality.”

NATO, meanwhile, has said there are no provisions to expel members.

“NATO’s Founding Treaty does not foresee any provision for suspension of NATO membership, or expulsion,” a NATO official told TIME.

TIME has reached out to the Pentagon for comment.

Since the start of the Iran war, Spain has been among the most vocal European critics, accusing the U.S. of dragging the world into a conflict that has brought nothing but “insecurity and pain.”

Spain denied the U.S. permission to use jointly-operated bases to attack Iran and went on to close its airspace to U.S. planes involved in the conflict.

Months earlier, Spain resisted Trump’s calls for all NATO members to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP.

Spain’s opposition to the conflict in the Middle East, and its defiance to heed Trump’s calls for support from NATO allies, has prompted strong rebuke from the U.S. President.

“Spain has been terrible. I told Scott [Bessent, Treasury Secretary] to cut off all dealings with Spain,” Trump warned in March, threatening economic repercussions. “We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain. We don’t want anything to do with Spain.”

And it’s not only Spain that has incurred the wrath of Trump, as he has also made threats against the United Kingdom, with relations between the once-close allies now strained amid the Iran war.

The discussed Pentagon email reportedly suggests reviewing the U.S. position on Britain’s claim to the Falkland Islands, as well as removing “difficult” allies from key NATO roles and positions.

Trump’s tensions with NATO have been years in the making, as he was critical of the alliance throughout his first term.

Last month, Trump warned NATO allies of a “very bad” future should they not help secure the Strait of Hormuz. European countries responded to Trump with caution and resistance, declining to send warships to the vital trade waterway.

Shortly after, Trump said he was strongly considering pulling the U.S. out of the alliance, insisting they had failed his “test” when asked to assist the U.S.

Experts told TIME that although Trump could explore a select few avenues to pursue leaving NATO, the legalities involved would be murky, at best. 

But the mere suggestion of the U.S. leaving NATO has caused a lot of damage, they added.

“The very idea of a U.S. exit erodes trust, cohesion, and the credibility of collective defense,” Ilaria Di Gioia, a senior lecturer in American law at Birmingham City University, told TIME. 

“Trump’s repeated questioning of the alliance weakens deterrence, shakes European security planning, and emboldens adversaries.”

The Senate voted to adopt a budget resolution aimed at clearing the path to fund immigration agencies in an effort to end the two-month shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS.)

The measure advanced with a 50-48 call early Thursday, with all but two Republicans voting in favor of advancing the GOP plan that could see the eventual approval of around $70 billion in additional funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol.

Republican Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska notably joined all Democrats in voting against the measure.

Sen. Paul, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, raised issue with the breakdown of the numbers, suggesting cuts be made elsewhere. 

“Congress ought to fund border security, but we should be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars and fully pay for the $70 billion to secure our borders,” he told the Senate floor.

Paul instead suggested an amendment, proposing the elimination of $5 billion in refugee welfare, cutting more than $45 billion in foreign aid, slashing the National Science Foundation by nearly $4 billion, and reducing the Department of Education by 16%.

“These reductions would be made in just one fiscal year and would fully pay for border security,” he claimed.

Paul has previously broken with his party on fiscal policy matters.

In February 2025, he was the only Republican to oppose a resolution led by Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina that would have allowed the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees to spend up to $175 billion to implement Trump’s border security agenda.

He also opposed Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” which passed in the Senate last July with the tie-breaking vote of Vice President J.D. Vance.

His opposition and citing of concerns over “fiscal conservatism” drew criticism from Trump, who described Paul on Truth Social as “a sick wacko, who refuses to vote for our great Republican Party.”

Sen. Murkowski, a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, did not immediately comment on her vote opposing Thursday's measure, but she has previously been a vocal critic of the Trump Administration’s handling of immigration enforcement.

“The tragedy and chaos the country is witnessing in Minneapolis is shocking,” she said in January after Alex Pretti, a U.S. citizen, was fatally shot by federal agents.

Murkowski insisted the killing should “raise serious questions within the Administration about the adequacy of immigration-enforcement training and the instructions officers are given on carrying out their mission.”

The Alaska Senator also joined Democrats in voting to rescind ICE funding earlier this year.

Like Rand, she has earned the wrath of Trump when breaking from party lines.

Meanwhile, following the vote in the early hours of Thursday morning, the legislation will now move to the House. 

If the budget framework is adopted, it would allow congressional committees to begin drafting separate legislation outlining how the $70 billion would be spent, which Trump would then need to sign into law.

The funding is expected to run for three years, coinciding with the end of Trump’s presidency in January 2029.

“The vast majority of Republicans stuck together to do something Democrats are refusing to do: Fully fund the Border Patrol and ICE for three and a half years through the Trump presidency,” said Sen. Graham.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune stressed there is a “multistep process ahead of us," yet told reporters he's hopeful the House will move forward soon, as DHS officials warn that funding will dry up next month. 

But Republicans and Democrats remain at odds about how best to move forward.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the budget resolution and said “nobody respects” ICE and Border Patrol.

“When America’s crying out for real relief on the skyrocketing cost of living, Republicans are spending another $140 billion on Trump’s private militia, on these two rogue agencies that have no restraint,” he argued.

Trump demanded an apology over the comment on Thursday, referring to it as “one of the most egregious, incorrect, unpatriotic, and dangerous statements” he had ever heard from a politician.

Funding for most of DHS lapsed in late January after Democrats refused to continue financing the agency in response to the Administration’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis, which resulted in the fatal shootings of Pretti and fellow U.S. citizen Renee Good at the hands of federal agents.

The partial shutdown has become the longest in U.S. history, stretching on for more than 60 days and causing disruption across several agencies, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), where staffing shortages resulted in long lines at airports.

Democrats in the Senate alongside the Republicans agreed in March to fund DHS whilst leaving out funding for ICE and some parts of Border and Customs Patrol (BCP). However, House Republicans rejected the deal, saying they would not support any bill that did not fund immigration enforcement. 

Trump moved to fund the agency via executive action, but if funding runs out again before the DHS is fully reopened, there are concerns travelers in the U.S. could see a return of long airport lines and significant delays.