Nearly two-thirds of Brits oppose Donald Trump being given the honour ofaddressing both Houses of Parliament, according to a poll.
YouGov research found 63 per cent would prefer the US president is barred from making a speech at Westminster during his State Visit - due later this year.
Some 22 per cent favoured of the event happening, while 15 per cent said they did not know. Only Reform voters from the last election were mostly behind Mr Trump, by a margin of 49 per cent to 36 per cent.
Keir Starmer invited the President for a State Visit as part of his charm offensive during a trip to the White Housein February.
However, concerns have been voiced about the idea after Mr Trump's bruising clash with Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office.
The administration has also suggested annexing Canada and Greenland, criticised free speech in Europe and caused global chaos by slapping punitive tariffs on imports.
A minister today flatly dismissed demands for Donald Trump to be barred from addressing both Houses of Parliament
Touring broadcast studios this morning, education minister Stephen Morgan said he did not support calls from some MPs and peers, insisting the UK needs 'strong and effective' relations with the US
Mr Trump revealed over the weekend that his 'friend' King Charles is looking at setting a date in September for his the visit.
However, some MPs and peers have mounted a bid to stop him being granted the honour of speaking at Parliament. Barack Obamadid so in 2011, although Joe Biden did not more recently.
Mr Trump was previously controversially barred from making a speech at Westminster by former Speaker John Bercow. Mr Bercow said in 2017 that it was 'an earned honour', not an 'automatic right'.
The Commons Speaker, the Lord Speaker and the Lord Great Chamberlain - represented by Black Rod - are the three 'gatekeepers' who have to agree to such an address.
Labour's Rachael Maskell told MailOnline: 'It would be completely inappropriate for the US President to address the Houses of Parliament.'
But asked on LBC this morning whether he would support a ban, education minister Stephen Morgan said: 'No, I wouldn't. It's really important we continue strong and effective relationships with some of our longest allies in the world.'
He told Times Radio: 'I look forward to the US president addressing Parliament in due course.'
Since coming to power Labour ministers have been at great pains to avoid criticising Mr Trump, amid frantic efforts to maintain the 'Special Relationship'.
But the effective ban in 2017 followed a Parliamentary motion being signed by 206 MPs, including David Lammy, 'deploring' the US president's behaviour.
Other now-Cabinet ministers putting their names to the motion were Wes Streeting, Peter Kyle, Hilary Benn and Shabana Mahmood.
The text noted 'the historical significance and honour that comes with an invitation to address both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall or elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster'.
It called on the 'Speaker, Lord Speaker, Black Rod and Serjeant at Arms to withhold permission from the Government for an address to be made in Westminster Hall, or elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster, by President Trump'.
Another Early Day motion in 2019, the year Mr Trump made his first state visit, was signed by Mr Lammy, Mr Streeting and now Leader of the House Lucy Powell among others.
It again 'noted the historical significance and honour that comes with the choice to offer a full state visit to an individual' and urged 'the Prime Minister and the Government to rescind the advice to offer a full state visit to President Trump'.
A message sent to Lord McFall, the Lord Speaker, over the weekend said it would be 'inappropriate' for Mr Trump to give an address in the Palace of Westminster.
Co-ordinated by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, a minister in Tony Blair's government, it responded to the suggestion the state visit would be in September.
The message said: 'If it is suggested that he be invited to address both Houses of Parliament, I hope that you and Lindsay will suggest that would be inappropriate on this occasion because of his attitude towards and comments about the UK, parliamentary democracy, the Nato Alliance and Ukraine.'
MPs are also privately lobbying Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle.
Kate Osborne, a Labour MP, asked Sir Lindsay to mirror Mr Bercow's previous decision.
In a letter seen by The Times, she wrote: 'I am asking you as the Speaker to agree it would be inappropriate and mirror the previous Speaker's recommendation.
Keir Starmer invited the US President for a State Visit as part of his charm offensive during a trip to the White House in February
A 2017 Parliamentary motion signed by 206 MPs, including David Lammy, 'deplored' the US president's behaviour
'It is up to our government to decide if they use the state visit to engage with Trump on a wide range of issues as above but that does not translate to giving him the honour of addressing parliament. The risk of low attendance could also have negative or unintended consequences.'
Another Labour MP said: 'We don't need Trump to lecture and dictate his unilateral terms to our elected representatives.'
However, Tory MP Julian Smith branded the attempt to block the address 'crackers'.
'Almost always better to engage & meet than to boycott - speaking to someone & meeting them doesn't equal agreement,' he posted on X.
Both the Lords and Commons insisted they did not comment on 'private correspondence'.
'Should a request be made to address the Houses of Parliament, it will be considered in the usual way. Any decision would be made by Speakers of both Houses,' a spokesman said.
Senior sources suggested the names that had so far emerged to voice opposition were 'not surprising'.
