🔗 Share this article

Interpreters may not be required when American leaders visit the UK, but that doesn’t mean Donald Trump and Britain's Prime Minister will understand one another this week. Starmer will practise tactful diplomacy, stressing shared benefit and historical alliance. Most of those concepts are meaningless to a president fluent only in personal gain.

An Examination in Contrasts

Considering the high chance of misunderstanding between both leaders from such different ideological backgrounds – the populist entertainer and the legalistic administrator – ties have been remarkably friendly and, according to UK officials, fruitful.

The contrast in approaches has been turned to an advantage. Starmer's reserved attentiveness doesn't attempt to rival Trump's public spotlight.

Compliments and Calculations

Trump has praised the British PM as a “decent fellow” with a “pleasing tone”. He's approved trade terms that are slightly less punitive than the duties imposed on other EU nations. British lobbying has been key in softening US antipathy for Nato and pushing Trump towards scepticism about Vladimir Putin’s motives in the ongoing conflict.

Handling the transatlantic relationship is among the rare achievements the dwindling group of supporters proudly mention. Privately, some Conservative critics concede the point. But among discontented members of the Labour party, and a broad swath of the electorate, Trump is seen as a monster whose unreliable concessions are hardly merit the cost in diplomatic humiliation.

Praise and Planning

Those expecting the state visit may include any indication of government criticism for Trump's authoritarian character will be disappointed. Flattery and regal pomp to secure the UK's position as America's favored ally are the primary objective.

Prearranged agreements on atomic and digital collaboration will be unveiled. Awkward differences on foreign policy – Britain’s imminent recognition of a Palestinian state; the US’s continued indulgence of Russian aggression – will not be aired openly.

Certainly not from Starmer's side. No amount of diplomatic preparation can prevent the president's tendency for off-the-cuff disruption. Even if the personal affection for Starmer is sincere, it is an outlier emotion in a leader whose support network throbs with antagonism toward a progressive UK.

Risks and Realities

The prime minister can only pray that such biases remain hidden in some spontaneous televised riff on popular Maga themes – repression of free speech via social-media content regulation; eroding native demographics in a rising migrant tide. Should that be avoided, the risk exposes a flaw in the policy of uncritical intimacy with an inherently unreliable regime.

The argument supporting Starmer’s method is that Britain’s economic and defense needs are tied to American influence and will remain so for years to come. Pursuing separation out of distaste for an incumbent president would be myopic self-indulgence. Whatever sway a secondary partner might have over a sensitive superpower needs to be exercised discreetly behind closed doors. The more openly dissenting approach, occasionally demonstrated by Emmanuel Macron, doesn’t get results. Additionally, Paris remains in the European Union. Brexit places the nation apart in Trump’s mind and, reportedly, thereby affords special advantages.

Strategy and Weakness

This perspective was set out by Peter Mandelson, shortly before his dismissal as US diplomat. The core idea was that the 21st century will be defined by superpower rivalry between the United States and Beijing. The winner will be the one that dominates in AI, quantum computing and similar breakthroughs with significant military potential. The UK is disproportionately competitive in these sectors, despite being a mid-sized nation.

In short, the UK is bound by shared goals and pragmatic post-EU politics to join Team USA when the sole option is a world order dictated by the CCP. “Like it or not, ties with Washington are now indispensable to the functioning of our nation,” noted Mandelson.

This outlook will keep influencing the government’s foreign policy regardless of who is the ambassador. There's accuracy about the emerging tech rivalry but, more importantly, it aligns with the deep grain of the UK's pro-US leanings. It dismisses any need to strive more at closer ties with the rest of Europe, which is a complex multi-party endeavor. It has many intricate elements and a tendency to start awkward conversations about worker movement. The prime minister is making steady advances in his revamp of European ties. Negotiations on agricultural trade, defence and energy cooperation are underway. But the mechanics of building rapport with the US administration are simpler and the payoff in diplomatic gains comes quicker.

Volatility and Risk

The president negotiates quickly, but he undoes them just as fast. His promises is not a bond. His commitments are temporary. Preferential treatment for UK firms might be offered, but not delivered, or partly implemented, and one day reversed. Trump made deals in his initial presidency that are worthless now. His method is pressure, the traditional strong-arm tactic. He imposes harm – tariffs for foreign governments; lawsuits or regulatory trouble for US businesses – and offers to relieve the distress in return for some commercial advantage. Yielding invites the bully to come back for more.

This is the economic corollary to the president's attacks on court autonomy, pluralism and legal order. UK nationals might not be directly threatened by deployment of the national guard in US cities under the guise of law enforcement or a paramilitary immigration force that kidnaps people from public spaces, but that doesn’t mean the corrosion of democracy in the US doesn't affect British well-being.

Lessons and Liabilities

For one thing, the nationalist movement provides a template that Nigel Farage is admiring, prepared to introduce something along the same lines if his party ever gains power. Denying them that opportunity will be simpler if the case opposing illiberal politics have been made before the general election campaign.

That argument should be made on ethical grounds, but it applies also to practical considerations of geopolitical influence. The UK government denies there is a option to be made between restored relations with Brussels and Washington, but Trump is a jealous master. Allegiance toward the dominant power across the Atlantic is an all-in gamble. There is an lost chance in terms of strengthening alliances with nearby nations, with countries that honor agreements and international rules.

That tension may be avoided if the president's term turns out to be a temporary phase. His age is advanced. Maybe a successor, empowered by a centrist legislature, will halt the nation's decline into autocracy. That could happen. But is it the likeliest scenario in a nation where political violence is being normalised at an alarming rate? How likely of an smooth transition away from a governing group that unites religious fundamentalists, white supremacists, wild-eyed tech-utopian oligarchs and corrupt profiteers who cast all opposition in shades of treason?

Such individuals who gracefully step down at the ballot box, or even take the chance of impartial votes. They are not people on whose values and judgment Britain should be staking its destiny prosperity or national security.