🔗 Share this article

Translators may not be necessary when American leaders visit the UK, but that doesn’t mean the US President and Keir Starmer will understand one another during these talks. The UK prime minister will employ careful statesmanship, stressing shared benefit and long-standing partnership. Most of these ideas are meaningless to a president fluent only in self-interest.

A Study in Differences

Considering the high chance of miscommunication between two men from such different ideological backgrounds – the showbiz demagogue and the legalistic administrator – relations have been remarkably friendly and, in Downing Street’s estimation, productive.

The contrast in styles has been turned to an advantage. The prime minister’s reserved attentiveness 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 trade terms that are marginally less vindictive than the duties imposed on the rest of Europe. UK advocacy has been key in easing White House disdain for the Atlantic alliance and pushing the president towards doubt about Russia's intentions in Ukraine.

Handling the transatlantic relationship is among the rare achievements Starmer’s shrinking band of loyalists confidently cite. Privately, some Tory opponents concede the point. But among discontented members of the opposition movement, and a broad swath of public opinion, Trump is seen as a dangerous figure whose flimsy favours are not worth the cost in national self-abasement.

Flattery and Forethought

Anyone hoping the state visit may include some hint of government criticism for Trump's authoritarian character are set for letdown. Flattery and regal pomp to secure Britain’s status as Trump’s most esteemed tributary are the whole point.

Prearranged agreements on nuclear and tech cooperation will be unveiled. Awkward differences on international strategy – the UK's upcoming acknowledgement of a Palestinian state; the US’s continued indulgence of Russian aggression – will remain undiscussed in public.

Certainly not from Starmer's side. All the Foreign Office contingency planning can insure against the president's tendency for unscripted sabotage. Although the personal affection for the UK leader is sincere, it is a rare feeling in a man whose support network throbs with antagonism toward a progressive UK.

Risks and Realities

Starmer can only hope that such biases remain hidden in an impromptu broadcast commentary on popular Maga themes – repression of free speech via online censorship; submersion of indigenous white folk in a growing influx of newcomers. Even if that doesn’t happen, the hazard exposes a weakness in the strategy of uncritical intimacy with an notoriously unpredictable administration.

The argument supporting the UK approach is that the nation's financial and security interests are tied to American influence and will remain so for years to come. To attempt strategic decoupling due to dislike for an incumbent president would be short-sighted folly. Such influence as a secondary partner might have over a sensitive superpower 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 places the nation apart in Trump’s mind and, it is said, thus offers unique opportunities.

Vision and Vulnerability

This perspective was set out by a former envoy, shortly before his dismissal as US diplomat. The core idea was that the 21st century will be shaped by superpower rivalry between the United States and Beijing. Who prevails will be whichever leads in artificial intelligence, advanced processing and other such innovations with awesome dual-use applications. The UK is disproportionately competitive in this field, despite being a mid-sized nation.

Simply put, the UK is bound by common interests and post-Brexit realpolitik to join Team USA when the sole option is a world order controlled by the CCP. Whether desired or not, ties with Washington are now essential for the functioning of the country,” noted Mandelson.

That perspective will keep influencing the UK's international stance irrespective of who is the ambassador. It contains some truth about the emerging tech rivalry but, more importantly, it aligns with the deep grain of the UK's pro-US leanings. It also brushes aside any need to strive more at closer ties with the rest of Europe, which is a complex multi-party endeavor. Involving complex moving parts and a habit to trigger awkward conversations about worker movement. Starmer is making incremental progress in his revamp of European ties. Talks on agricultural trade, defence and energy cooperation are underway. But the mechanics of building rapport with the White House are simpler and the payoff in political gratification arrives faster.

Uncertainty and Instability

The president negotiates quickly, but he cancels agreements just as fast. His promises is not a bond. His commitments are conditional. Preferential treatment for British business might be offered, but not delivered, or incompletely executed, and eventually withdrawn. Trump made deals in his initial presidency that count for nothing now. His method is extortion, the classic protection racket. He imposes harm – tariffs for foreign governments; legal actions or regulatory trouble for domestic companies – and offers to relieve the suffering in return for some commercial advantage. Paying up encourages the bully to come back for more.

This is the economic corollary to the president's attacks on judicial independence, pluralism and legal order. UK nationals might not be directly threatened by deployment of the national guard in American urban areas under the pretext of public safety or a armed border unit that kidnaps people from the streets, but it's incorrect to assume the corrosion of democracy in the US has no bearing UK interests.

Implications and Dangers

For one thing, the nationalist movement sets an example that Nigel Farage is emulating, ready to implement something along the same lines if Reform UK ever form a government. Denying them that opportunity will be simpler if arguments against illiberal politics have been made in advance of the national vote.

That case should be made on ethical grounds, but it applies also to pragmatic calculations of global sway. The UK government rejects there is a option to be made between restored relations with Brussels and the US, but Trump is a jealous master. Allegiance toward the super-potentate 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 global norms.

This conflict may be prevented if the president's term turns out to be a temporary phase. He is old. Maybe a successor, empowered by a centrist legislature, will reverse the nation's decline into autocracy. It is possible. But is it the likeliest scenario in a nation where political violence is being normalised at an worrying speed? How likely of an smooth transition away from a ruling party that unites religious fundamentalists, white supremacists, wild-eyed tech-utopian oligarchs and opportunist kleptocrats who label critics in as disloyal?

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 betting its future prosperity or national security.