🔗 Share this article

Translators may not be necessary when American leaders visit the UK, but that doesn’t mean the US President and Britain's Prime Minister will speak the same language this week. The UK prime minister will employ tactful diplomacy, stressing mutual advantage and long-standing partnership. Many of those concepts are meaningless to a president fluent only in personal gain.

An Examination in Differences

Given the likelihood of misunderstanding between two men from vastly opposing political cultures – the showbiz demagogue and the legalistic administrator – relations have been surprisingly cordial and, in Downing Street’s estimation, productive.

Their differing in approaches has been used beneficially. The prime minister’s reserved attentiveness makes no competitive claim Trump's public spotlight.

Praise and Pragmatism

The US leader has complimented the British PM as a “decent fellow” with a “beautiful accent”. He has agreed commercial conditions that are slightly less punitive than the duties imposed on other EU nations. UK advocacy has been instrumental in easing US antipathy for Nato and pushing the president towards scepticism about Vladimir Putin’s motives in Ukraine.

Handling the transatlantic relationship is one of the few things Starmer’s shrinking band of supporters confidently cite. Privately, some Conservative critics concede the point. But among discontented members of the Labour party, and a broad swath of the electorate, the president is viewed as a dangerous figure whose flimsy favours are not worth the price in diplomatic humiliation.

Praise and Planning

Those expecting the state visit may include any indication of official rebuke for the honoured guest’s autocratic tendencies will be disappointed. Compliments and ceremonial grandeur to secure the UK's position as America's favored ally are the whole point.

Pre-cooked deals on atomic and digital collaboration 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 openly.

Not by the prime minister, at least. 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 a rare feeling in a man whose support network is fueled by hostility to Labour Britain.

Risks and Realities

Starmer can only hope that such biases remain hidden in some spontaneous televised riff on popular Maga themes – curtailing expression via online censorship; eroding native demographics in a rising migrant tide. Should that be avoided, the hazard reveals a weakness in the policy of unquestioning closeness with an notoriously unpredictable administration.

The case for the UK approach is that the nation's financial and security interests are tied to American influence and are likely to stay that way for years to come. Pursuing strategic decoupling due to dislike for an incumbent president would be myopic self-indulgence. Such influence as a junior ally might have over a sensitive superpower needs to be exercised sparingly in private. The more openly dissenting approach, occasionally demonstrated by the French president, doesn’t get results. Besides, France is part of the EU. Brexit puts Britain in a different category in the president's view and, it is said, thereby affords special advantages.

Vision and Vulnerability

A version of this argument was set out by a former envoy, shortly before his dismissal as US diplomat. The thrust was that the current era will be shaped by great power competition between the US and China. Who prevails will be whichever leads in AI, advanced processing and other such innovations with awesome dual-use potential. The UK is unusually strong in this field, despite being a mid-sized nation.

Simply put, the nation is tied by shared goals 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 operation of our nation,” noted the ex-ambassador.

That perspective will keep influencing the UK's international stance regardless of who is the ambassador. It contains some truth about the new technological arms race but, more importantly, it aligns with the ingrained tendency of the UK's pro-US leanings. It also brushes aside any need to work harder at reintegration with the rest of Europe, which is a complex multi-party endeavor. Involving many intricate elements and a tendency to trigger awkward conversations about labour migration. Starmer is making incremental progress in his reset of EU relations. Talks on agricultural trade, defence and energy cooperation are underway. But the process of cosying up to the US administration are easier and the reward in political gratification comes quicker.

Volatility and Risk

Trump does deals briskly, but he undoes them just as rapidly. His word aren't reliable. His commitments are conditional. Special terms for UK firms might be offered, but not fulfilled, or incompletely executed, and eventually withdrawn. The president made deals in his initial presidency that are worthless now. His modus operandi is extortion, the traditional strong-arm tactic. He imposes harm – taxes for foreign governments; legal actions or bureaucratic harassment for US businesses – and proposes easing the distress in exchange for some commercial advantage. Yielding encourages the bully to come back for more.

This is the financial parallel to Trump’s political assault on judicial independence, diversity and the rule of law. UK nationals might not be immediately endangered by military mobilizations in American urban areas under the guise of public safety or a paramilitary immigration force that kidnaps people from public spaces, but it's incorrect to assume the erosion of freedoms in the US doesn't affect UK interests.

Implications and Dangers

For one thing, the nationalist movement provides a template that Nigel Farage is admiring, ready to implement something along the same lines if Reform UK ever gains power. Denying them that opportunity will be easier if arguments against illiberal politics have been made before the general election campaign.

That argument should be made in principle, but it applies also to pragmatic calculations of global sway. Downing Street denies there is a choice to be made between restored relations with the EU and the US, but the president demands loyalty. Fealty to the dominant power across the Atlantic is an high-risk bet. There is an opportunity cost in terms of bolstering partnerships with nearby nations, with states that honor agreements and global norms.

That tension may be avoided if Trump’s reign turns out to be a temporary phase. His age is advanced. Maybe a successor, empowered by a centrist legislature, will reverse the nation's decline into autocracy. That could happen. But is it the likeliest scenario in a country where political violence is being normalised at an alarming rate? What is the probability of an orderly transfer of power away from a governing group that combines dogmatic believers, racial extremists, wild-eyed tech-utopian oligarchs and corrupt profiteers who label critics in shades of treason?

These are not people who humbly surrender power at the ballot box, or even run the risk of impartial votes. These aren't actors on whose principles and decisions Britain should be betting its future prosperity or safety.