President Donald Trump slouches forward, hands clasped in front of him, as Sir Keir Starmer, seated next to him, pulls an envelope from his suit jacket. “It’s my pleasure to bring, from His Majesty the King, a letter,” he says. “An invitation for a second state visit. This is really special. This has never happened before. It’s unprecedented.”
To some, that scene from February last year might have looked like a masterstroke of pragmatic diplomacy by Sir Keir – a knowing wink from the Brits that he was playing his Trump card, appealing to the president’s ego. But as King Charles prepares for his own reciprocal visit to Washington this April, the first by a British sovereign in nearly two decades, it’s fair to say that the diplomatic landscape has shifted dramatically.
In fact, the timing for the King could not be more fraught. Just last week, his brother, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office – the result of an investigation into whether he abused his position as a UK trade envoy to pass confidential information to the late paedophile sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The event reignited the Epstein scandal just as Charles prepares to break bread with a president who was once a fixture of that same social circle.
open image in gallery
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor rides a horse in Windsor Great Park, near Royal Lodge, a property on the estate surrounding Windsor Castle, on 2 February 2026 (Reuters)
The spectre of awkward questions from lawyers for Epstein’s survivors, members of Congress, and journalists now looms over the visit. The US Representative Robert Garcia, who in November called on Mountbatten-Windsor to testify before Congress, described Andrew’s arrest as an “enormous step forward” and has questioned why the US Department of Justice has not shown the same urgency.
“It’s time for the United States to end this White House cover-up,” he said. “President Trump and his Epstein administration are not above the law.”
A Palace statement that Charles III’s “thoughts and sympathies have been, and remain with, the victims of any and all forms of abuse” may not satisfy those in Washington, who believe the King should now publicly urge his younger brother to assist US authorities. With the Clintons having agreed to submit their testimonies to the House Oversight Committee, the questions about why Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor isn’t doing the same are likely to increase. Yet the mere suggestion that Charles publicly press Mountbatten-Windsor to testify places him in a perilous position, raising difficult questions about the boundaries between family, accountability, and protecting the Crown.
open image in gallery
For many, the King’s visit to the US is no longer a celebration of the Special Relationship, but a show of political appeasement of a controversial administration that is leaning more towards authoritarian instincts every day (PA)
In Washington, there is little of the reflexive deference that surrounds the monarchy at home. American political reporters – and British correspondents in the US – operate at a greater remove; here, an unanswered question could prove a provocation that invites a louder, more public demand for the truth.
And this isn’t the only problem on the horizon for Charles. For many, the visit is no longer a celebration of the Special Relationship, but a show of political appeasement of a controversial administration that is leaning more towards authoritarian instincts every day. Steve Schmidt, a former Republican political strategist and founder of the anti-Trump political action committee The Lincoln Project, is among those leading a growing chorus demanding the King stay home. Otherwise, Schmidt says, the result will be “brutal” humiliation – something he promises to personally guarantee.
This year – America’s 250th birthday – was supposed to be a moment of national reflection and celebration of democracy. Instead, it has become a flashpoint. In the wake of the ICE killings of innocent American citizens and growing tensions domestically and internationally, for Schmidt and many others, this is an administration that is betraying the very values the 250th anniversary of American independence is meant to celebrate.
open image in gallery
Catherine, Princess of Wales, attends a State Banquet at Windsor Castle, on 8 July 2025, on the first day of a three-day state visit by France’s President Emmanuel Macron (AFP/Getty)
And he sees the spectre of Jeffrey Epstein hanging over the royal visit, adding to this toxic picture. With emboldened victim advocacy groups and lawmakers now calling for the former prince to testify before a US truth commission, Schmidt says the juxtaposition is jarring: while one brother faces police questioning over his ties to a paedophile ring, the other is set to be feted at a White House where the host’s own past associations with Epstein are well known.
“Look at what has transpired since then,” Schmidt tells The Independent. “An American president has threatened to wage war on Nato, to take by force territory of the kingdom of Denmark, and has unsettled profoundly the world order. America is facing a profound crisis in the 250th year of its independence.
“History here matters,” he says. “The first British sovereign to step foot on American soil was Charles’s grandfather, George VI. And when he did so in 1938, there was no special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. It was a country filled with Irishmen who had no affection whatsoever for the British crown.
“Franklin Roosevelt curated every aspect of that visit, which included travelling up the Potomac River on the presidential yacht to Mount Vernon, where George VI entered the tomb of George Washington and paid his respects.”
“The greatest American invention, many of us believe, is the peaceful transfer of power, which continued uninterrupted from 1797 until 2020,” Schmidt says. “Donald Trump lost that election. His lies about it being stolen … have poured acid on the cornerstone of the country.”
open image in gallery
Jeffrey Epstein blamed ‘Charles’ on the day Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor lost his UK trade envoy job, email reveals (US Justice Department)
Schmidt points to this history as a warning. Where Roosevelt used the monarchy to build an alliance against fascism, he argues that the current administration intends to use Charles as a propaganda tool.
“Trump, who was a close associate and friend of Epstein, is hanging banners of himself off the Justice Department,” Schmidt says, referring to the 40-foot Make America Safe Again sign containing a dark-hued portrait of Trump, which was unfurled last week and which critics said was reminiscent of authoritarian “leader-cult” propaganda. “There are men shooting American citizens in the back. Now is not the time for a British sovereign to come and serve as a propaganda tool for this,” Schmidt says.
And not only could the King be loudly lobbied by Epstein’s victims, but Schmidt also warns that if the King proceeds, the response from his own group will also be brutal and humiliating. The Lincoln Project built its brand on scathing, high-production-value ads targeting Trump during the 2020 election cycle, drawing widespread media attention and even fury from Trump himself. “They should call it the Loser’s Project,” he once said. He is now promising the same treatment to the King should he proceed with his trip in April.
No longer with the Lincoln Project, Schmidt now helps run The Save America Movement, a nonprofit focused on “defending democracy and restoring common sense.” And he says: “If the King comes to America in April, he is coming in support of a man who is defiling American values by choice. And if he makes that decision, he will be greeted with an advertising campaign that will boggle the British imagination.”
open image in gallery
Charles leaves for Washington at a time when grassroots campaigns are loudly calling for a total boycott of US products (PA)
Asked for specifics, Schmidt says: “You should imagine billboards in Times Square that have Charles and Camilla and Donald and Melania and Epstein and Ghislaine, right? Remember when Charles wanted to be a tampon for Camilla? It will be brutal. It will be humiliating,” he says, referring to the “Tampongate” scandal, in which a private, intimate 1989 phone call between then-Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, intercepted by an amateur radio enthusiast and leaked to the Daily Mirror, became a national embarrassment.
“We will also ask the question: what did the King know – and when did he know it – about his brother? We’ll play by the First Amendment; by American rules. The First Amendment is absolute, and it will be a public relations disaster that exceeds anything known by the Crown. Our goal is not to disrespect the British sovereign. Our goal is not to humiliate the King of England. But we will do so in defence of American liberty.”
While the American political media is often accused of being servile, Schmidt believes the truth will find its way through a “raging torrent” of British reporting. The stakes, he says, involve the very credibility of the Crown.
And lawmakers are ready to show their teeth, too. While Congress lacks the statutory power to compel a foreign citizen to testify, any formal subpoena would be triggered if Mountbatten-Windsor ever sets foot on US soil. And a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) could petition British courts to force a deposition on UK soil in any criminal investigation. If Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives (and/or Senate) in November, the current polite requests for interviews are likely to be replaced by a barrage of Oversight Committee subpoenas and televised hearings focused on the Epstein files.
Palace insiders will be strategising for all events in this hostile atmosphere that is just as febrile in the UK, too. Charles leaves for Washington at a time when grassroots campaigns are loudly calling for a total boycott of US products and even a UK withdrawal from the 2026 World Cup.
This domestic pressure forces the King into an impossible choice if he goes through with his US visit: he must act as a diplomat tasked with protecting British business interests, yet risks being seen by a younger generation of his subjects – and many in the US – as an enabler of an administration they find repugnant.
To a generation accustomed to the advocacy of the California Sussexes, Charles’s refusal to directly address the Greenland crisis, the ICE killings, or his brother’s predicament while a guest of the White House risks looking less like royal neutrality bound by constitutional constraint and more like complicit silence. And, on a personal note, there will likely be questions raised on both sides of the Atlantic about whether Charles will make arrangements to see his estranged youngest son and two half-American grandchildren.
As the April date approaches, the question remains: will Charles be able to use the diplomatic pomp and heritage magic of a visit by a monarch to endear himself to a nation, at home and abroad, or will he find himself a pawn in a crisis engulfing the establishment on both sides of the pond? For Schmidt, the answer is simple. For his advisers, it is anything but.