There was no shortage of tripwires that could have derailed Andy Burnham’s first meeting with Donald Trump.
Trump had previously called Burnham “extremely liberal” and dismissed him as the “mayor of a town”.
The two men disagree on some aspects of foreign policy and their approach to artificial intelligence, so it was little surprise that the Prime Minister looked a little nervous at times as he sat beside the leader of the free world to answer questions from the media at the UN General Assembly in New York.
How bereavement leave is changing
From April next year, employees’ entitlement to unpaid time off work after suffering a bereavement will extend to step and half relatives, as well as foster, kinship care and adoptive relationships.
A change in the law
The new legislation will include employees who lose a spouse, partner, parent, adult child or sibling. Those who suffer a bereavement will be entitled to up to two weeks’ unpaid leave.
- The Government had already confirmed the new rights will apply to parents who experience a miscarriage before 24 weeks of pregnancy.
What was previously covered
A legal right to unpaid leave for employees who had suffered a bereavement was only introduced under The Employment Rights Act of December 2025.
Before that, only parents who had lost a child under 18 or stillborn from 24 weeks had a legal right to bereavement leave.
5 min read
4 min read
Support for those grieving
No one should have to fight for time to grieve. These changes back people going through some of the hardest moments of life, whoever they are and wherever they work.
Minister for the Future of Work, Kate Dearden
Why babies infected in the womb are ‘more likely to have autism’
Babies could be at a higher risk of autism and intellectual disability if they contract infections such as rubella and herpes in the womb, a new study has suggested.
What you need to know about the study
Researchers from Sweden’s Karolinska Institute analysed health records from 3.7 million people born between 1987 and 2021.
- 975 of these had been diagnosed with a so-called congenital “torch” infection – a group of parasitic, bacterial and viral diseases.
- Children known to have had one of these before birth were around three times more likely to be diagnosed with autism, and seven times more likely to have an intellectual disability.
- The researchers also found that those who had been infected, but had neither of these tended to have slightly lower school grades at 16.
Family circumstances not a factor
To check whether genetics or family circumstances might have affected the result, the researchers compared the affected children with siblings who had not contracted a congenital infection, but the associations with autism and intellectual disability remained.
4 min read
7 min read
A low chance of infection
Experts emphasised that infections are very rare, occurring in only around 2.5 per 10,000 births.
- The authors said the study strengthened the case for vaccination and other measures that stop infections being passed on to the foetus.
Limitations to the study
- The observational study cannot prove that the infections caused autism.
- It also relied on clinically diagnosed congenital infections, meaning that milder or symptom-free infections could have been missed.
Why CNN thinks it can sue its way back into White House
After reporters from CNN, MS Now and were denied entry to the White House, the media organisations headed for the courts to get their access back.
The rest of the media suspended some coverage of Donald Trump in sympathy, but he has not backed down, setting up his own “Trump TV” live channel.
What happened?
Mid-afternoon Friday, DC time, Trump officially banned CNN, MS Now and from the White House, explaining it was “a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!”
He threatened that “Other Fake News Media Outlets [are] to follow”, adding “[t]here’s something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories”.
Why might ban be illegal?
The media companies’ legal argument rests on three grounds: that the ban did not follow “due process” such as allowing notice; that it violates a constitutional right to free speech and that it also violates free speech by denying access to a “non-public forum” (the White House).
- Washington DC’s district court judge Timothy Kelly ordered that the defendants file a response the next day, with a hearing set for Wednesday.
What did Trump say?
Trump claimed to have “expected” the lawsuit, and again attacked the media organisations, saying the Oval Office “should be treated with Decorum, Respect, and Dignity, not defiled by Third Rate Clowns”.
But he seemed to anticipate being ruled against in the court, saying “we’ll go for appeal”.
3 min read
5 min read
What does the law say?
Timothy Kelly previously ruled on a similar case. In 2018, he ordered that a CNN reporter should get his White House press pass back after he was banned following a contentious exchange with the President.
Experts note that because a system has been created that allows journalists access to parts of the White House, courts have placed limits on how access can be withdrawn.
But, an appellate court previously ruled that presidents retain substantial authority over who they allow into limited-access settings.
Are other media taking sides?
- Major US television outlets agreed to suspend some video coverage of Trump, in a demonstration of solidarity with the banned channels.
- No broadcaster covered the ribbon-cutting for the White House’s new helipad, and the President’s remarks were inaudible on a hastily-arranged live stream.
- Media organisations also joined in a boycott of the photographic pool at the White House.
- There was normal media coverage for the President’s visit to meet New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who said he had told Trump that all members of the press would be present.
In the end, the meeting produced remarkably little friction despite the discussions straying into sometimes contested territory, including the Falkland Islands and the Ukraine conflict.
The only openly hostile exchange came over the Chagos Islands, with Trump again describing Britain’s plan to settle the status of the joint military base on Diego Garcia as a “terrible deal”.
Otherwise, the two men, who met for approximately 40 minutes before they faced the world’s media, navigated a broad agenda, including the Middle East, without any major clash.
Trump said they had “established a good connection” and predicted that Burnham would be a “great prime minister”.
The warmth was striking. So, too, were some of the more surprising details of their discussions.
1. Even without the charm offensive, Trump liked Burnham better than Starmer
In July, when Trump met Sir Keir Starmer at the Nato summit in Turkey after he had announced his resignation, the US President said he wanted to “bring him back” and “make him great again”, as The i Paper revealed last weekend.
Two months on, that affection has evaporated. Asked about a special relationship that has been up and down, Trump said things were “more up than they were under your last prime minister.”
The US President has long preferred leaders he sees as dealmakers, and he has decided that Burnham is one. “I think he’s a natural business person,” he said, adding that the pair had spoken “numerous times on the phone” before New York. “He gets it. He understands what he has to do.”
2. No Trump attack on UK migration policy
This is the same US President who has said Britain is “on the edge of disaster” and “being invaded” because of “insane” immigration policies. However, in New York, he called it “a worldwide situation” and a problem “for many countries”.
Instead of lecturing Britain, Trump talked about his own record, claiming 18 consecutive months with no illegal crossings into the US. For a Labour Prime Minister under pressure on small boats, being spared a public rebuke on his first outing is significant. Trump did not endorse Burnham’s approach. He simply chose not to make it the story.
3. Trump thinks Britain has ‘tremendous potential’
Trump has previously called the UK “essentially bankrupt” for refusing to fully exploit North Sea oil and for relying on green energy.
He has also claimed the country is “dying” under mass migration. This time he said Britain had “tremendous potential” and compared it favourably with other countries whose leaders he meets but in which he sees little promise. Britain, he said, was “just waiting for success, waiting for good leadership”.
4. Burnham swerved a Trump rebuke over the West Bank
Given the administration’s closeness to the Israeli Government, many expected Washington to condemn Britain’s sanctions on West Bank settlements.
When asked directly, Trump did not engage. He said he did not know about the move, then turned to Burnham and asked whether he did, leaving the Prime Minister to answer.
It was an odd moment, but a useful one for No 10. A US President who wanted to punish Britain had an open invitation to do so and passed it up. At the very least, it suggests the issue is not a priority for Trump, which gives Burnham more room than he might have expected on the issue.
The verdict
Burnham’s first meeting with Trump went better than he and his officials had likely feared. Warm words, however, are not agreements. Chagos is still a live issue, the cost-of-living crisis depends on events in the Gulf, and Trump’s goodwill has already shifted once this summer from Burnham’s predecessor to him.
Although he has passed his first test, the relationship will be judged on what follows and how his own party feel about a seemingly cosy relationship with one of the most controversial US presidents.