Republicans in Congress Show Signs of Angst Over Trump’s Trade War

 

News Analysis

Republicans in Congress Show Signs of Angst Over Trump’s Trade War

 

Senators opposed the president’s plan to import beef from Argentina and voted three times this week to end his power to enforce sweeping tariffs.

 

Megan Mineiro

By Megan Mineiro

Reporting from the Capitol

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/31/us/politics/trump-republicans-congress-trade.html

Oct. 31, 2025

Updated 12:58 p.m. ET

 

Three times this week, the Senate voted to deny President Trump the power to enforce sweeping tariffs he has imposed since taking office in January, with a few Republicans joining Democrats in votes that reflected growing resistance in his own party to his trade policies.

 

The action was symbolic, since the measures have little chance of advancing in the House and no chance of being signed into law by Mr. Trump. But behind the scenes, Republicans were pressing for a very real reversal by the president. In a closed-door luncheon with Vice President JD Vance, several of them lobbied for the administration to abandon a plan to increase imports of Argentine beef.

 

Republicans in Congress have marched in near-lock step with the president’s foreign and domestic policy agenda. But taken together, the votes to end his tariffs and the private confrontation with the vice president indicated growing angst in the G.O.P. over the impact Mr. Trump’s trade agenda is having on constituents.

 

Mr. Vance had been dispatched to Capitol Hill to urge his former Senate colleagues to vote against the trio of resolutions, all of which would terminate the emergencies Mr. Trump declared to justify levying tariffs on trading partners across the globe.

 

 

Instead, the vice president found himself in a heated discussion with Republican senators from major cattle-producing states over the administration’s plan to quadruple the amount of beef from Argentina allowed into the United States each year, at a lower tariff rate. The move is a bid to bring down the cost of beef after prices rose in recent years. But it has enraged ranchers, a key Republican constituency.

 

Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, called it a “frank and vigorous conversation,” innocuous words often used by members of Congress to characterize a far more intense and angry discussion.

 

His fellow Texas Republican, Senator John Cornyn, said that G.O.P. lawmakers “don’t want to advantage any sort of foreign imports over our domestic production or make it unaffordable to American producers.”

 

He added: “I think the vice president received the message, and I’m sure will deliver it.”

 

Hours later, a resolution to end Mr. Trump’s 50 percent tariffs on Brazil passed with bipartisan support.

 

The following evening, the Senate voted 50 to 46 to end some of his tariffs on Canada. And on Thursday, Republicans crossed party lines to help pass a third resolution, 51 to 47, to rescind the president’s global tariff rate on more than 100 trading partners.

 

The majority of Republicans have said they support Mr. Trump’s trade policies, arguing that even if they cause temporary discomfort, the tariffs will ultimately reshape the global economy to be more fair to American farmers, manufacturers and business owners.

 

Senator John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican who opposed the resolutions, acknowledged that farmers were “very concerned and having a hard time,” but said that he believed the president’s moves would pay off.

 

“All along, President Trump has been working to get us better trade deals and more sales for our guys. I think that’s what we’ve been anticipating, and it’s not an easy process,” he added.

 

But other Republicans say the pain is a clear sign that Mr. Trump’s policy is deeply flawed. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the former party leader, voted for all three anti-tariff measures this week, arguing that the president’s trade war had harmed car manufacturers, farmers and bourbon distillers in his state.

 

“Consumers are paying higher prices across the board as the true costs of trade barriers fall inevitably on them,” he said in a statement.

 

He added: “Protectionists in Washington insist that the past several months have vindicated the policy of indiscriminate trade war against both close allies and strategic adversaries. But Kentuckians are especially well equipped to sort the bluster from the truth.”

 

Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who also crossed party lines to back the resolutions, warned in a recent letter to Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, and Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, that Mr. Trump’s 50 percent tariff rate on steel and aluminum had “exacerbated” the challenges facing lobstermen in her state, raising the price of “nearly all equipment that lobstermen use, including traps, clips, rings and hoops.”

 

Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who sponsored the three tariff resolutions, said the vice president’s trip to Capitol Hill was a sign that the White House knew “that his own side is getting really worried” about the pain the tariffs had caused.

 

“They don’t send the V.P. up,” Mr. Kaine added, “unless the White House is really worried. The V.P. came up to corral them, which is how the V.P. gets used. And there were still five defectors.”

 

Those defectors were Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky, the sole Republican to sponsor the three measures to end the tariffs, as well as Mr. McConnell, Ms. Collins and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who voted for all of them.

 

Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina also backed the resolution to scrap the tariffs on Brazil. The United States has a trade surplus with Brazil, and the tariffs the president imposed amounted to political retaliation against the current government for prosecuting Jair Bolsonaro, his ally and the country’s former president, for an attempted coup. Mr. Tillis called the Brazil tariffs “arbitrary” and said they created uncertainty for U.S. manufacturers and consumers. 

 

The Senate’s action came just as Mr. Trump struck a trade agreement with China’s leader, Xi Jinping, that would end a Chinese boycott on American soybeans and other farm products. But the agreement, whose details have yet to be made public and which appeared to involve a relatively small number of soybean purchases, did little to allay the concerns from some Republicans about the potential harm the president’s approach could do to their producers.

 

The Constitution vests the power to levy taxes in Congress, and “tariffs are taxes,” Mr. Paul said this week, adding that they drove up the cost of everyday goods for Americans.

 

“These new taxes in the form of tariffs don’t just fail on economics. They fail on the Constitution, and must be reversed,” he said.

 

The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week on the question of whether the president holds the power to enforce his sweeping tariffs under a law first passed by Congress during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

 

Republicans who voted against the tariff resolutions dismissed them as political attacks on the president. Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, said he believed Mr. Trump had acted within the bounds of the laws that Congress had passed over the years that expanded the powers of the presidency, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

 

“They’re trying to cherry pick a message by saying, ‘We don’t like this tariff. We don’t like that tariff.’ Have they introduced legislation that would change any of the statutes?” Mr. Hawley said.

 

Megan Mineiro is a Times congressional reporter and a member of the 2025-26 Times Fellowship class, a program for early-career journalists.

Dickie Arbiter: The Andrew I knew was an arrogant bully

The US-China Trade Deal Explained

MAGA turns on Trump over his 'war presidency'

HE LOST! Trump folds again in trade war, Nobel economist breakdown

Trump’s been played by Xi in China deal | Justin Wolfers

Military Expert's Warning to Trump: This Move Could Be the End of the of the Trump Presidency

Tucker SLAMS Trump For Regime-Change War On Venezuela

EXPOSED: Dirty Deal With Israel

Vance CONFRONTED About Miriam Adelson

Andrew could face police inquiry, mounting pressure on disgraced royal

D66’s Rob Jetten claims election win, aims for broad coalition

 

D66’s Rob Jetten claims election win, aims for broad coalition

October 31, 2025

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/10/d66s-rob-jetten-claims-election-win-aims-for-broad-coalition

 

D66 leader Rob Jetten has claimed victory in the Dutch general election after calculations by news agency ANP showed his party can no longer be overtaken by the far-right PVV.

 

“Thank you for your trust,” Jetten said on social media. “We are the biggest party in the Netherlands and now we are going to work on behalf of all the Dutch.”

 

Speaking to reporters in The Hague, Jetten said that he would aim for a broad, centre coalition. “The most important thing is to look at how we can represent the millions of people who did not vote for us on themes such as the housing market, migration, climate and the economy,” he said.

 

The results of the vote are complicated, Jetten said, and he urged all political leaders to think about how best to build a stable coalition.

 

A centre-right coalition involving the far-right JA21 would not be his first choice, Jetten said. VVD leader Dilan Yesilgöz, who won 22 seats on Wednesday, has said this is her preferred option.

 

“I would call on VVD leader Yesilgöz to let the results sink in… during campaigns party leaders try to get as many votes as possible in line with their ideals. But now we have another responsibility, and that is to make sure this country can move forward.”

 

Although all the votes have not yet been counted, ANP said that D66 is 15,155 votes ahead of Geert Wilders’s party and cannot now be overtaken.

 

The final tally hinges on the last local authority still to report – PVV-voting Venray in Noord-Limburg, with some 24,000 votes – and the 90,000 votes cast by Dutch expats living abroad, who favour D66.

 

The news, which is not yet official, means Jetten will take the lead in forming a new coalition government. Parliamentary party leaders are due to meet next Tuesday to discuss who should be appointed as verkenner, an elder statesman or woman who will sound out the 15 parties likely to be represented in parliament about the options.

 

Youngest prime minister

The result means the Netherlands will have its first ever D66 prime minister — and its youngest. Jetten became an MP in 2017 and has led the parliamentary party since 2018. In 2023 he took over the national party leadership following the resignation of Sigrid Kaag.

 

He will also be the Netherlands’ first openly gay prime minister and is set to marry his partner, Argentine hockey player Nicolás Keenan, in 2026.

 

Both D66 and the PVV are currently on 26 seats in the 150-seat parliament, but analysts suggest D66 could win one more when the final calculations are made.

How Frans Timmermans’ EU job destroyed his Dutch political career

 

How Frans Timmermans’ EU job destroyed his Dutch political career

 

Europe’s Social Democrats mourn the loss of their biggest hope for a comeback.

 

October 30, 2025 6:02 pm CET

By Max Griera

https://www.politico.eu/article/frans-timmermans-netherlands-election-geert-wilders-eu-dutch-politics/

 

THE HAGUE — Frans Timmermans rose to the pinnacle of European Union politics.

 

But it was his own Brussels legacy that sabotaged his attempt to defeat the far right.

 

Timmermans resigned as the leader of the GreenLeft-Labor alliance Wednesday night after a stunning underperformance in the Dutch general election, with the party losing five seats since the last election and ending up in fourth place.

 

“It’s clear that I, for whatever reason, couldn’t convince people to vote for us,” Timmermans said in a speech in Rotterdam after the exit polls were published Wednesday night. “It’s time that I take a step back and transfer the leading of our movement to the next generation.”

 

The pan-European Party of European Socialists considered Timmermans living proof that progressive, left-wing politics are in for a comeback after a decade of losing ground to the right.

 

To them, Timmermans was an international statesman with a real a chance at scoring the Netherlands’ premiership, 23 years since the last government led by Social Democrats.

 

But for Dutch voters, he was unable to shake his reputation as an outsider and elitist. And it was precisely that international experience that doomed him as a stodgy statesman in The Hague.

 

As a European commissioner for nearly a decade, half of it spent as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s second-in-command, Timmermans delivered the flagship EU Green Deal package to fight climate change.

 

The ailing GreenLeft-Labor alliance — which only recently began an official merger process — also put stock in Timmermans, bringing him back home to lead the charge against the surge of far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) in the national election of 2023. But his party failed to win the top slot, and was sidelined in government formation.

 

Party leaders on the right demonized Timmermans, branding him as a green fanatic who would misspend taxpayer cash, should he be given the chance to govern.

 

Dilan Yeşilgöz, the leader of Mark Rutte’s liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), called him “arrogant” and “elitist” on several occasions — as did other leaders.

 

Hopes for Timmerman rose again this past June when the right-wing government, led by Geert Wilders’ PVV, collapsed. With all major parties now pledging to sideline the far right, and with favorable polls placing his party second after PVV, Timmermans seemed to have another shot at leading the next Dutch government.

 

But much as he tried, Timmermans failed to get rid of his EU past and lead his own country.

 

Brussels arrogance

During the EU election in 2019, Timmermans was the lead candidate of the European Socialists, campaigning across EU countries and on many occasions speaking the local tongue — as he is fluent in six languages. This impressive international flair earned him supporters in Brussels — but not so much in his home country.

 

Since his return to Dutch politics, Timmermans’ problem has been that he is seen as an intellectual focused on foreign affairs, coming from the outside to lecture Dutch voters, campaign expert Alex Klusman and Leiden University politics professor Sarah de Lange told POLITICO ahead of the vote.

 

“He has a handicap, because he’s perceived as this relatively well-off cosmopolitan” — an image that creates tension with the idea of defending “the interests of ordinary Dutch citizens,” said de Lange.

 

Over the years, Timmermans has grappled with being seen as arrogant after years of keeping his head out of the country — first, as state secretary of EU affairs and minister of foreign affairs for seven years, followed by his tenure at the European Commission for nine years, said Klusman, who is the CEO of the BKB campaigning agency.

 

When he came back to the Netherlands in 2023, Dutch citizens saw Timmermans as someone who was lecturing them — “telling them what to do, and at the same time somebody who had lost complete contact with what the Netherlands had become,” Klusman said. By that time, Klusman pointed out, the country had become widely dominated by right-wing politicians distrustful of the EU.

 

For a man who had been in charge of devising the core of the Green Deal — now used in a counter-campaign by portraying it as killing Europe’s businesses — it was not a smooth landing.

 

An article by Dutch newspaper NRC ahead of the vote argued that GreenLeft-Labor is increasingly associated with words like elitist, cosmopolitan and moralistic.

 

“This image, partly the result of years of hard work by Geert Wilders, has stuck with many voters,” the analysis said. “GreenLeft-Labor is finding it difficult to shake that off.”

 

Timmermans himself was keenly aware of that image, which he fought hard to leave behind.

 

The perception of him as an outsider in his own country, Timmermans said when asked by POLITICO prior to the Dutch vote, “was very relevant two years ago when I came back — but last year, year-and-a-half, this has not been an issue.”

 

“People remember that I was in government, that I was in the European Commission. But it’s no longer ‘the guy who comes to lecture us,’ because I’ve been active in Dutch politics again for two full years in the forefront of national politics,” he added.

 

Failed makeover

Timmermans indeed worked hard to change his image. He sought to convey a more energetic, healthier politician campaigning across the country, while living in his hometown Maastricht to show he is connected to his roots.

 

That makeover included dramatic weight loss after a gastric bypass surgery he underwent a year ago — which he descrribed at length in an interview with Dutch daily De Telegraaf, known to be especially critical of Timmermans, to try make him more palatable to right-wing voters.

 

But, according to Klusman, key for Timmermans were the “two years of humbleness lessons” doing parliamentary work as opposition leader after he lost the election in 2023.

 

“In the beginning, he would never say that he wasn’t right, that he made a wrong remark or a wrong position in a debate,” said Klusman. But “now he’d think, and then he’d say, ‘no, I made a mistake.’” Timmermans began to listen instead of lecture, Klusman added.

 

As the EU’s Green Deal architect, he brought the message home by focusing on the social aspects of climate change — for example, Timmermans tapped the narrative that building out renewable energy will reduce the energy bills for Dutch households.

 

But despite all efforts, personal opinion ratings a few days before the election showed the wider Dutch population did not like Timmermans, giving him among the lowest grades on Oct. 27.

 

 “He is clearly not perceived as a new Timmermans,” said de Lange. “He’s very much perceived as the same figure he was in 2023” — as a party leader with strong credentials as a minister and a commissioner — “but far less as a fighter in politics and campaigning,” she concluded.

 

Eva Hartog and Hanne Cokelaere contributed to this report.

DUTCH ELECTION 2025: End Of Far-right Wave? Geert Wilders Suffers Big Election Blow

Netherlands nailbiter as far-right, centrists in election dead-heat • FR...

Netherlands election: Votes still being counted in tight race

D66 or PVV as biggest? Final Dutch election votes trickle in

 

D66 or PVV as biggest? Final Dutch election votes trickle in

October 30, 2025

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/10/d66-or-pvv-as-biggest-final-dutch-election-votes-trickle-in/

 

The result of the Dutch general election remained too close to call on Thursday afternoon, with the far-right PVV and the liberal D66 tied on 26 seats as the last results trickled in.

 

Slow counting in some areas and a small electrical fire at Venray town hall have delayed the publication of the final results from the Netherlands, while the votes of Dutch expats abroad still need to be included.

 

With 99.7% of the votes counted, both parties have won around 1.7 million votes and are separated by just a few thousand — a figure that has shifted back and forth between the two as the final towns declare their results.

 

Early on Thursday afternoon, however, D66 took a 15,000-vote lead over the PVV following the publication of the final results from Amsterdam.

 

Although the end result is unlikely to affect the number of MPs each party will have, the leader of the biggest party traditionally starts the coalition process. Both PVV leader Geert Wilders and D66’s Rob Jetten have said they believe that should happen now.

 

A historic win in a fractured political landscape

Parliamentary chairman Martin Bosma, a PVV MP, said on Thursday he will not start the coalition process until the final result is confirmed. That figure, including an estimated 90,000 expat votes, will not be known until Monday evening.

 

At the last election in 2023, most expat votes went to GroenLinks-PvdA, with D66 winning 10.5% and the PVV 6.3%. But that year, D66’s support collapsed nationwide, and insiders expect a much stronger performance this time, in line with the party’s resurgence in the Netherlands itself.

 

The votes from one Caribbean island – Sint Eustatius – went to the NSC, which will have no seats in the lower house of parliament. The other two islands, which are technically Dutch local authorities, both had D66 as the biggest party.

 

All the party leaders – including a new parliamentary chief for the GroenLinks-PvdA alliance following Frans Timmermans’ resignation, will meet Bosma on Tuesday.

Reform is ‘fascist’ | Lord Heseltine’s dying wish to stop Farage

From margins to mainstream: Is Reform surging in Scotland?

Nigel Farage Heckled After Vote to Leave Human Rights Convention

Marine Le Pen: "Throughout Europe, the left has admitted that it was nec...

Marine Le Pen souhaite rétablir le délit de séjour irrégulier,

Denunciation of the agreements with Algeria: "I welcome this victory of ...

Le RN et l'accord franco-algérien : Jordan Bardella invité de Thomas Sot...

Accord franco-algérien : victoire « historique » pour le RN - L’édito de Patrick Cohen

"Victoire historique", "refoulé colonial" : la presse française réagit à la résolution du RN votée

France : vote d'une résolution contre l'accord franco-algérien de 1968 •...

Why ‘rent scandal’ Reeves is the ultimate in Labour hypocrisy | The Daily T

Mel Stride Says Reeves' Rent Scandal Shouldn't Be Brushed Under the Carpet

Starmer rules out investigation after Reeves admits rental 'mistake'

Rachel Reeves's rental breach set to face more scrutiny

Lettings agency takes blame in Rachel Reeves licence row

 

Lettings agency takes blame in Rachel Reeves licence row

 

Agency says staff member offered to apply for licence to allow chancellor to rent out family home, but failed to do so

 

Peter Walker Senior political correspondent

Thu 30 Oct 2025 23.43 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/30/rachel-reeves-row-standards-adviser-looking-at-new-infomation

 

Keir Starmer appears to have escaped the huge political damage of potentially losing his chancellor weeks before the budget, after 24 hours of intense scrutiny over whether Rachel Reeves broke the law when she rented out her family home.

 

The Conservatives said Reeves must be sacked if she committed an offence by not obtaining a council licence before letting out her four-bedroom house in south London when the family moved into 11 Downing Street. No 10 was initially unable to explain why Starmer believed an apology from the chancellor was sufficient.

 

But after a chaotic day, the lettings agency employed by Reeves said it was to blame for not applying for the licence, and apologised for the error.

 

Emails subsequently released by Downing Street between the agency and Reeves’s husband, Nicholas Joicey, a senior civil servant, supported this version of events.

 

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, argued that this did not close the matter and called for Starmer to hold a full investigation. But with Southwark council saying it had no plans to take action against Reeves, her position seemed secure.

 

Starmer confirmed there would be no further action after consulting with his independent adviser on ministerial standards, Laurie Magnus. In a letter to Reeves, he said: “I still regard this as a case of an inadvertent failure to secure the appropriate licence, which you have apologised for and are now rectifying … I see no need for any further action.”

 

The departure of Reeves would have been a devastating blow for Starmer. The chancellor is pulling together a budget, to be announced on 26 November, that is seen as crucial to the prospects of his government.

 

It would also have been the second loss of a key minister in recent months, after Angela Rayner stood down as deputy prime minister and housing secretary in September over another property-related controversy, in her case the underpayment of stamp duty on an £800,000 seaside flat.

 

The row over Reeves’s property affairs began on Wednesday evening with the publication of letters between her and Starmer about her failure to pay for a £945 “selective licence” before she let the home, as required in some parts of Southwark.

 

In her letter, Reeves said she had been unaware of the need for a licence, and that she had applied as soon as she was made aware.

 

In his reply, Starmer said that, having consulted Magnus, he was satisfied the breach was “inadvertent” and that given her prompt action once she knew about the licence, an apology was sufficient.

 

Downing Street refused to say whether Magnus had seen any evidence to support Reeves’s claim of having made an inadvertent mistake, or had taken her word for it.

 

No 10 declined to say whether Reeves contravened the ministerial code or had potentially broken the law. Badenoch argued that if Reeves was fined she should be dismissed, citing Starmer’s argument after Boris Johnson’s fine for breaching Covid rules that “lawbreakers cannot be lawmakers”.

 

In an early piece of good news for Reeves, Southwark released a statement saying that while it could not comment on individual cases, it pushed for enforcement action such as fines only when someone did not apply for a licence within 21 days of being warned they needed one, or if a property was found to be in an unsafe condition.

 

No 10 later announced that Magnus had reopened his examination of the case after new information emerged in emails to and from Joicey.

 

Shortly afterwards, Harvey & Wheeler, an estate and lettings agency based in Dulwich, south London, said it took responsibility for the lack of licence. While owners of properties usually applied for these, it said, in this instance a now-departed staff member offered to do so on Reeves’s behalf and then did not.

 

In a statement, the company said that “in an effort to be helpful” the then property manager offered to apply for a licence on behalf of Reeves’s family, but did not and then left the company just before the tenancy began.

 

“Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight,” it said. “We deeply regret the issue caused to our clients as they would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for.”

 

A message from the agent to Joicey read: “I will do the selective licence once the new tenant moves in as I won’t need to do this just yet. At the moment as we are only applying for a council licence.”

 

In response, Joicey asks the agency to “please, do go ahead” and obtain the licence, plus an electrical safety test, asking if any more administrative tasks needed to be completed.

 

In a new letter to Starmer, Reeves wrote that the agency had accepted responsibility, adding: “Nevertheless, as I said yesterday, I accept it was our responsibility to secure the licence. I also take responsibility for not finding this information yesterday and bringing it to your attention.

 

“As I said to you today, I am sorry about this matter and accept full responsibility for it.”

 

A Tory party spokesperson said: “Last night Rachel Reeves said ‘she had not been made aware of the licensing requirement’. Today, we find out that Reeves was alerted to the need for a licence in writing by the estate agents.

 

“Having been caught out, the chancellor is now trying to make the estate agents take the blame … With more information coming to light every few hours, the prime minister needs to grow a backbone and start a proper investigation.”

Why Rachel Reeves is likely to RAISE income tax to fill Budget black hol...

Will Labour break their tax promise?

Sky News Press Preview | Liam Thorp and Cindy Yu | Thursday 30 October 2025

Esqueçam, já não vale a pena ilegalizar o Chega

Ventura is relentless: "They want to arrest me for saying what I think? ...

Falkirk: the centre of Scotland's immigration debate STV News Report

Calls for a halt to moving asylum seekers into old army barracks in Inverness have been ignored.

Asylum seekers housed in army barracks–the Inverness plan explained | Pl...

Inside the British town FURIOUS at plans to house 600 migrants

Highland protesters speak out as asylum seekers to move to army barracks

Why King Charles decided to strip Andrew of his title of ‘Prince’ | BBC ...

Ex-Prince Andrew 'exiled' by King Charles over Epstein links | Kinsey Sc...

Prince Andrew stripped of all titles and thrown out of Royal Lodge

“Harry And Meghan Should Be Concerned” | King Charles Strips Prince Andrew Of Titles

MPs back King's decision / Politicians have backed the King's decision to strip Prince Andrew of his titles and Royal Lodge residence.

 

MPs back King's decision

Politicians have backed the King's decision to strip Prince Andrew of his titles and Royal Lodge residence.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-andrew-royal-title-virginia-giuffre-epstein-latest-news-b2855816.html

 

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said: "I'm afraid the whole Jeffrey Epstein saga and everyone it has touched, from Prince Andrew to Peter Mandelson, has just shown that the public has no truck whatsoever with any kind of sexual abuse, sexual offences, especially of minors. And I think that that's quite right."

 

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said Charles was absolutely right to do so.

 

He added: "It's clear that Andrew's position had become totally untenable, having disgraced his office and embarrassed the country.”

 

The leader of the Scottish National Party in Westminster, Stephen Flynn, said: "The right decision and an important moment for the victims of Epstein.

 

"I hope all those who were elected to Parliament and chose to defend inaction rather than speak out now regret the choice they made."

King begins process to remove Andrew's royal titles | The UK Tonight

Prince Andrew to Be Stripped of His Royal Title

 

Prince Andrew to Be Stripped of His Royal Title

 

The extraordinary move caps his fall from grace over his ties to the convicted sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.

 

Mark Landler

By Mark Landler

Reporting from London

Oct. 30, 2025

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/30/world/europe/uk-prince-andrew-title.html

 

Andrew, the scandal-scarred younger brother of King Charles III, will be stripped of his title as prince, an extraordinary punishment — unheard-of in the annals of the modern British royal family — that caps his fall from grace over his ties to the convicted sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.

 

In a statement on Thursday, Buckingham Palace said it had begun a formal process to remove the “style, titles and honors of Prince Andrew.” The prince, it said, “will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor,” the family name of members of the House of Windsor. The palace also said that Andrew, 65, would be evicted from his sprawling residence, Royal Lodge, and move to a private house.

 

The announcement, in a terse three-paragraph statement, came after Britain’s royal family was plunged into a widening crisis over new disclosures about the extent of Andrew’s links to Mr. Epstein and more damning details about his alleged sexual abuse of a young woman trafficked to him by Mr. Epstein.

 

Andrew has steadfastly denied that he raped the woman, Virginia Roberts Giuffre. But doubts about his account of his relationship with Mr. Epstein — as well as sordid details of his sexual misconduct in a newly published memoir by Ms. Giuffre — made his position in the royal family increasingly untenable.

 

Ms. Giuffre died by suicide in Australia last April; Mr. Epstein died, also by suicide, in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.

 

Some British lawmakers had called on Parliament to take action against Andrew or to pass legislation that would make it easier for the king to do so. The government has resisted getting involved, reflecting an ancient custom of the crown and Parliament staying out of each other’s business. But the drumbeat of disclosures was making it harder to avoid taking more definitive action against Andrew.

 

Last week, Andrew announced he would give up the use of his other most prominent title, the Duke of York. His status as a prince, the palace said at the time, was based on his being the son of a monarch, Queen Elizabeth II.

 

On Thursday, palace officials said the king was sending “royal warrants” to the Lord Chancellor requesting that he remove both the titles of Duke of York and prince, as well as the honorific “His Royal Highness,” from the Peerage Roll, which sets out royal and aristocratic titles in Britain.

 

The palace said this would not require an act of Parliament, as some legal experts speculated last week. Charles, palace officials said, was pushing the boundaries of his royal prerogative because he did not want Parliament to spend time on this matter at the expense of other pressing national issues.

 

Not since King Edward VIII abdicated the throne in 1936 over his proposed marriage to a divorced American woman, Wallis Simpson, has the royal family experienced such an abrupt and visible downgrade of one its most senior members.

 

When Prince Harry and his American-born wife, Meghan, announced in 2020 that they would withdraw from official duties and move to the United States, he remained a prince, and the couple remained the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, titles bestowed on them by the queen when they married.

 

Palace officials also said that Andrew would move to a residence on the grounds of Sandringham, a royal residence in Norfolk, northeast of London, which is owned personally by Charles. The king, they said, would support Andrew through his private funds. Andrew’s former wife, Sarah Ferguson, who had lived with him at Royal Lodge, will receive no further support from the family, officials said.

 

“These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him,” the palace said in the statement. “Their majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.”

 

For all the censure, officials said Andrew did not lose his place in the line of succession to the throne (he is eighth). But they noted that, just as in the case of Edward VIII, Britain would never allow an unsuitable person to become sovereign. Andrew’s daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, will keep their titles.

 

Palace officials said the decision to act against Andrew had been made by Charles himself in response to what he viewed as serious lapses of judgment on his brother’s part. They said the king was supported by other members of the family, including Prince William, his elder son and the heir to the throne.

 

Experts on the royal family said Charles was acting partly out of fear that the relentless scandal over Andrew was sapping public support for the monarchy. In 2023, a poll of British social attitudes by the National Center for Social Research found that 54 percent of people surveyed said it was “very” or “quite important” for Britain to have a monarchy, compared with 86 percent in 1983.

 

Andrew’s ties to Mr. Epstein have haunted him for more than a decade, costing him his job as a trade ambassador for Britain. But his problems deepened in 2019, after he gave a calamitous interview to the BBC. In it, he denied having sex with Ms. Giuffre and insisted that he cut off contact with Mr. Epstein in 2010. British newspapers recently reported that Andrew sent a supportive email to Mr. Epstein a year later.

 

The fierce public backlash over the BBC interview led Andrew to withdraw from official duties in 2019. But his problems kept mounting. After a judge allowed a lawsuit filed by Ms. Giuffre against Andrew to go ahead in 2022, he lost his honorary military titles and use of the honorific His Royal Highness.

 

Andrew settled the suit with Ms. Giuffre later that year — without admitting wrongdoing — and his mother helped fund the undisclosed payment. But after the queen died in September 2022, his position became more isolated. The surrender of his lease to the Royal Lodge became one of the last sticking points in sealing his estrangement.

 

When the palace stripped Andrew of the use of the title Duke of York this month, officials said he would no longer be invited to the family’s Christmas celebration, traditionally held at Sandringham.

 

Now, he will live in internal exile — bearing the title of a commoner, in a house on the grounds of the castle where the rest of his family gathers.

 

Mark Landler is the London bureau chief of The Times, covering the United Kingdom, as well as American foreign policy in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. He has been a journalist for more than three decades.

Andrew biographer: Losing titles 'a welcome step'

Analysis : Not in this together: King Charles cuts Andrew loose to save royal family’s repute

 

 Analysis

Not in this together: King Charles cuts Andrew loose to save royal family’s repute

Robert Booth

Jettisoning of ex-prince became unavoidable when king’s loyalty to his brother collided with task of keeping public on side

 

 Prince Andrew to be stripped of titles and move out of Royal Lodge

Thu 30 Oct 2025 22.06 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/30/not-in-this-together-king-charles-cuts-andrew-loose-to-save-royal-familys-repute

 

To strip his brother of his titles and to evict him from his home is the most consequential action King Charles has taken since he ascended the throne in 2022.

 

The defenestration of Prince Andrew, now to be known only as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, and the removal of his cherished privilege of royal status is an act of utmost ruthlessness by a king. Ascending the throne at 73, Charles always knew he would play a caretaker role for the monarchy and so could not allow rot to set into an institution that lives and dies by public consent.

 

The damage that Andrew’s association with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell continued to inflict on the reputation of the royal family was simply too much for the king not to act as he did on Thursday evening. Charles has been described by his biographer Catherine Mayer as “loyal to a fault. Sometimes to the point of fault,” but this was too much.

 

The queen’s longevity always meant that Charles’s reign would be relatively short and therefore one of his most important tasks would be to bequeath the institution to Prince William in reasonable repair. William is relatively popular with the public and for Charles to leave him with a festering crisis for the sake of the feelings of his younger brother, recently caught lying about his continued association with Epstein, made no sense.

 

It emerged this month that Andrew had emailed Epstein in 2011 after a picture of him with his arm around the teenager Virginia Giuffre, who he is accused of having sex with when she was 17, was published in 2011. He previously claimed he had cut off contact with the sex offender by this point, but instead he is alleged to have told Epstein that “we are in this together”.

 

Then when the BBC this week reminded the world of a picture taken in the garden of Royal Lodge, the Windsor home Andrew is being turfed out of, which featured not only Epstein and Maxwell, both convicted child sex offenders, but also the convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein, it cannot have been difficult to decide to deliver the final blow. Charles decided that neither he nor the institution of the royal family could be “in this together” ever again with Andrew.

 

But this was not just the action of the chief executive of an institution sometimes called “the firm”. This was a family matter and therefore emotionally charged. The queen is said to have doted on Andrew, and his astonishing self-assurance has been attributed by some to that mothering by the queen, who is said to not have offered the same indulgences to her older children. Charles would no doubt have had his late mother’s views in mind when he signed off Thursday night’s statement announcing the “formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew”, that “notice has now been served to surrender the lease” on Royal Lodge and that “these censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him”.

 

In the simplest terms the issue also seemed to boil down to a question of whose side are you on.

 

As the final line of the statement from Buckingham Palace read: “Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.”

Prince Andrew stripped of Royal titles, surrenders residence

Prince Andrew to be stripped of titles and forced to leave Windsor home

 

Prince Andrew to be stripped of titles and forced to leave Windsor home

 

King’s brother will become known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, Buckingham Palace says, in latest fallout from Epstein scandal

 

Caroline Davies

Thu 30 Oct 2025 22.20 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/30/prince-andrew-leave-royal-lodge-windsor

 

Prince Andrew is to be stripped of his royal titles and will move out of his home at the Royal Lodge in Windsor, Buckingham Palace has announced.

 

King Charles has initiated a “formal process to remove the style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew”, who will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, the palace said.

 

It is understood the king had the support of the Prince of Wales in the decision and Andrew did not object to the process.

 

The decision follows anxiety within the royal household about the reputational risk to the monarchy caused by continual headlines concerning Andrew’s friendship with the late child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and allegations of sexual assault against him by one of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre.

 

This month the Guardian published extracts from the posthumous memoir of Giuffre, who died by suicide in April, aged 41. In the book she claimed the prince “believed that having sex with me was his birthright”.

 

Andrew has always denied claims he had sex with Giuffre when she was 17, and settled a civil case with her for a reported £12m with no admission of liability.

 

Giuffre’s family said on Thursday that “today, she declares a victory” and that she had “brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage”.

 

Buckingham Palace said in a statement: “Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

 

“His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence. Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation. These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.

 

“Their majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.”

 

It is understood that Andrew will move to a property on the private Sandringham estate in Norfolk, to be privately funded by the king.

 

His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, will also move out of Royal Lodge and will sort out her own living arrangements.

 

Formal notice was given to surrender the lease at the Royal Lodge on Thursday and it is understood that Andrew’s move to Sandringham will take place “as soon as practicable”. He will receive a private provision from the king, with any other sources of income to be a matter for the former duke.

 

The removal process applies to the titles of Prince, Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh and the style His Royal Highness. The honours affected are Andrew’s Order of the Garter and Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order. He had ceased to use the HRH style in 2022 but it had not been formally removed.

 

As daughters of the son of a monarch, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie retain their titles in line with King George V’s letters patent of 1917.

 

The king is understood to have acted now because while Andrew continues to deny the accusations against him, it is felt that there have been serious lapses of judgment.

 

The royal family had announced on 17 October that Andrew would voluntarily stop using the title Duke of York and give up his honours as a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order and Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.

 

But MPs proceeded to call for Andrew to be formally stripped of his titles. The public accounts select committee this week wrote to the Treasury and crown estate to demand more information about the circumstances of the terms of his residence at the 30-room Royal Lodge and why he was required to pay only a peppercorn rent.

 

Although the dukedom could be abolished through an act of parliament, it is understood that Charles did not wish to prevent parliament from focusing on urgent national issues.

 

The dukedom of York is a peerage. The king is sending royal warrants to the lord chancellor to secure the removal of the dukedom from the peerage roll, and the title of prince and style of Royal Highness. The subsidiary titles of Inverness and Killyleagh are similarly affected.

 

The move is understood to have taken place in consultation with the relevant government authorities. The government supports the decision.

 

In a statement to the BBC, Giuffre’s family said: “Today, an ordinary American girl from an ordinary American family brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage.

 

“Virginia Roberts Giuffre, our sister, a child when she was sexually assaulted by Andrew, never stopped fighting for accountability for what had happened to her and countless other survivors like her.

 

“Today, she declares a victory. We, her family, along with her survivor sisters, continue Virginia’s battle and will not rest until the same accountability applies to all of her abusers and abetters, connected to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.”

 

Sky Roberts, Giuffre’s brother, commended the king for “setting a precedent” and thanked him for the mention of “victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse” in the statement, but said Andrew should be put “behind bars”.

 

Giuffre alleged she was forced to have sex with Andrew three times – once at the convicted sex trafficker Maxwell’s home in London, once at Epstein’s address in Manhattan, and once on the disgraced financier’s private island, Little St James. Andrew has always denied the allegations.

 

The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, said it must have been “very difficult” for the king to take the steps against his sibling, but that it was right for the public not to tolerate sexual abuse allegations.

 

The culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, told BBC Question Time that removing Andrew’s titles was a “really brave, important and right step” by the king, which sends a “powerful message” to sexual abuse victims.

 

The Democratic congressman Suhas Subramanyam, who has previously called for Andrew to testify before a US Congressional committee about his links to Epstein and Maxwell, urged Andrew to give evidence.

 

He said: “It’s clear that Prince Andrew has information about Epstein’s crimes and he must do more than just give up titles or hide from the public spotlight. He owes it to the victims to share everything he knows about Epstein’s criminal operation and come before the oversight committee.

 

“Regardless, we will continue to pursue the files and all the evidence, no matter how rich and powerful the perpetrators involved.”