🔗 Share this article

Translators may not be required when US heads of state come to the UK, yet it's no guarantee the US President and Keir Starmer will speak the same language this week. Starmer will employ tactful diplomacy, emphasising shared benefit and long-standing partnership. Many of those concepts are meaningless to a president fluent only in personal gain.

An Examination in Contrasts

Given the likelihood of misunderstanding between both leaders from such different political cultures – the showbiz demagogue and the lawyer technocrat – relations have been remarkably friendly and, according to UK officials, productive.

Their differing in styles has been turned to an advantage. The prime minister’s quiet solicitousness makes no competitive claim Trump's public spotlight.

Praise and Pragmatism

Trump has praised the British PM as a “good man” with a “pleasing tone”. He has agreed commercial conditions that are slightly less punitive than the tariff regime on the rest of Europe. UK advocacy has been instrumental in easing White House disdain for Nato and pushing Trump towards doubt about Russia's intentions in Ukraine.

Managing the transatlantic relationship is one of the few things the dwindling group of loyalists confidently cite. In confidence, some Tory opponents concede the point. But among discontented members of the opposition movement, and wide segments 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 some hint of government criticism for the honoured guest’s authoritarian character are set for letdown. Flattery and regal pomp to secure Britain’s status as America's favored ally are the whole point.

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

Certainly not from Starmer's side. All the Foreign Office contingency planning can prevent the president's tendency for unscripted sabotage. Even if the individual fondness for Starmer is genuine, it is an outlier emotion in a leader whose power base is fueled by hostility to Labour Britain.

Risks and Realities

The prime minister can only hope that those prejudices don’t surface in some spontaneous televised riff on popular Maga themes – curtailing expression via social-media content regulation; eroding native demographics in a growing influx of newcomers. Should that be avoided, the hazard exposes a flaw in the strategy of unquestioning closeness with an inherently unreliable regime.

The case for the UK approach is that the nation's financial and security interests are inseparable from American influence and are likely to stay that way for years to come. Pursuing separation out of distaste for an incumbent president would be myopic self-indulgence. Such influence as a secondary partner might have over a prickly protector needs to be exercised discreetly behind closed doors. Public disagreement, occasionally demonstrated by Emmanuel Macron, doesn’t get results. Besides, Paris remains in the European Union. The UK's exit puts Britain in a different category in the president's view and, it is said, thus offers unique opportunities.

Vision and Vulnerability

A version of this argument was presented by a former envoy, just prior to his removal as ambassador to Washington. The core idea was that the 21st century will be defined by superpower rivalry between the US and China. The winner will be the one that dominates in AI, quantum computing and other such innovations with awesome dual-use potential. The UK is unusually strong in this field, given its size.

Simply put, the nation is tied by common interests and post-Brexit realpolitik to join Team USA when the only alternative is a global system controlled by the Chinese Communist party. “Like it or not, ties with Washington are now essential for the operation of the country,” noted Mandelson.

This outlook will keep influencing the UK's international stance regardless of diplomatic appointments. It contains some truth about the new technological arms race but, crucially, it goes with the ingrained tendency of the UK's pro-US leanings. It dismisses any need to strive more at reintegration with the rest of Europe, which is a complex multi-party endeavor. Involving complex moving parts and a habit to start uncomfortable discussions about worker movement. The prime minister is making steady advances in his reset of EU relations. Talks on farm goods, defence and power collaboration are ongoing. But the mechanics of building rapport with the US administration are simpler and the payoff in political gratification comes quicker.

Volatility and Risk

Trump does deals quickly, but he cancels agreements just as fast. His word aren't reliable. His commitments are conditional. Preferential treatment for British business might be promised, but not fulfilled, or partly implemented, and eventually withdrawn. The president made deals in his first term that are worthless now. His modus operandi is extortion, the traditional strong-arm tactic. He inflicts pain – taxes for other nations; lawsuits or regulatory trouble for domestic companies – and offers to relieve the suffering in return for some commercial advantage. Yielding encourages the intimidator to demand further concessions.

This represents the economic corollary to Trump’s political assault on court autonomy, pluralism and legal order. UK nationals might not be immediately endangered by military mobilizations in US cities under the pretext of law enforcement or a armed border unit that detains individuals from public spaces, but that doesn’t mean the erosion of freedoms in the US doesn't affect UK interests.

Implications and Dangers

Firstly, the nationalist movement sets an example that Nigel Farage is admiring, ready to implement a similar system if Reform UK ever form a government. Preventing such an outcome will be simpler if the case opposing illiberal politics have been rehearsed in advance of the national vote.

That case should be made on ethical grounds, but it applies also to practical considerations of geopolitical influence. Downing Street rejects there is a option to be made between restored relations with the EU and the US, but the president demands loyalty. Fealty to the super-potentate across the Atlantic is an all-in gamble. There is an opportunity cost in terms of strengthening alliances closer to home, with states that respect treaties and international rules.

That tension may be avoided if Trump’s reign turns out to be an aberration. His age is advanced. Maybe a successor, empowered by a moderate Congress, will halt the nation's decline into tyranny. That could happen. But is that probable in a country where electoral unrest is being accepted at an alarming rate? How likely of an smooth transition away from a governing group that combines religious fundamentalists, white supremacists, eccentric billionaire idealists and corrupt profiteers who label critics in as disloyal?

These are not people who humbly surrender power at the ballot box, or even take the chance of fair elections. They are not people on whose values and judgment Britain should be betting its future wealth or safety.