🔗 Share this article

Translators aren't required when US heads of state visit the UK, but that doesn’t mean Donald Trump and Britain's Prime Minister will understand one another during these talks. The UK prime minister will practise careful statesmanship, stressing shared benefit and historical alliance. Most of those concepts mean nothing to a leader fluent only in self-interest.

A Study in Contrasts

Given the likelihood of miscommunication between two men from vastly opposing political cultures – the populist entertainer and the lawyer technocrat – ties have been surprisingly cordial and, according to UK officials, productive.

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

Compliments and Calculations

Trump has praised the British PM as a “decent fellow” with a “beautiful accent”. He's approved commercial conditions that are slightly less punitive than the tariff regime on other EU nations. UK advocacy has been instrumental in easing US antipathy for the Atlantic alliance and pushing Trump towards scepticism about Vladimir Putin’s motives in the ongoing conflict.

Managing the UK-US partnership is among the rare achievements Starmer’s shrinking band of supporters confidently cite. In confidence, some Tory opponents admit this success. But among discontented members of the opposition movement, and a broad swath of public opinion, Trump is seen as a monster whose unreliable concessions are hardly merit the price in diplomatic humiliation.

Praise and Planning

Anyone hoping the state visit may include some hint of government criticism for the honoured guest’s authoritarian character are set for letdown. Compliments and ceremonial grandeur to guarantee the UK's position as America's favored ally are the primary objective.

Prearranged agreements on atomic and digital collaboration will be unveiled. Contentious disagreements on international strategy – Britain’s imminent recognition of a sovereign Palestine; America's ongoing tolerance of Russian aggression – will not be aired openly.

Not by the prime minister, at least. No amount of Foreign Office contingency planning can insure against the president's tendency for unscripted sabotage. Although the individual fondness for the UK leader is genuine, it is a rare feeling in a man whose support network is fueled by hostility to a progressive UK.

Dangers and Truths

The prime minister can only pray that such biases don’t surface in an impromptu broadcast commentary on popular Maga themes – repression of free speech via social-media content regulation; submersion of indigenous white folk in a rising migrant tide. Should that be avoided, the hazard reveals a weakness in the policy of uncritical intimacy with an inherently unreliable regime.

The argument supporting Starmer’s method is that the nation's financial and security interests are inseparable from US power and will remain so for years to come. To attempt strategic decoupling out of distaste for the current leader would be myopic self-indulgence. Such influence as a secondary partner might have over a sensitive superpower must be used discreetly behind closed doors. Public disagreement, occasionally demonstrated by Emmanuel Macron, doesn’t get results. Additionally, Paris remains in the European Union. The UK's exit puts Britain in a different category in the president's view and, reportedly, thus offers unique opportunities.

Vision and Vulnerability

A version of this argument was presented by Peter Mandelson, just prior to his removal as ambassador to Washington. The thrust was that the 21st century will be shaped by superpower rivalry between the US and China. The winner will be the one that dominates in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and other such innovations with significant military applications. Britain is disproportionately competitive in these sectors, despite being a mid-sized nation.

In short, the UK is bound by common interests and pragmatic post-EU politics to align with America when the only alternative is a world order controlled by the Chinese Communist party. Whether desired or not, ties with Washington are now indispensable to the operation of the country,” said Mandelson.

That perspective will keep influencing the UK's international stance regardless of who is the ambassador. It contains some truth about the emerging tech rivalry but, more importantly, it goes with the deep grain of Britain’s postwar Atlanticist bias. It also brushes aside any need to strive more at closer ties with the rest of Europe, which is a fiddly multilateral process. Involving many intricate elements and a habit to start awkward conversations about worker movement. Starmer is making steady advances in his reset of EU relations. Negotiations on agricultural trade, defence and energy cooperation are underway. But the mechanics of cosying up to the US administration are easier and the payoff in political gratification arrives faster.

Volatility and Risk

The president negotiates briskly, but he cancels agreements just as rapidly. His word aren't reliable. His commitments are temporary. Special terms for UK firms 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 modus operandi is extortion, the classic protection racket. He imposes harm – taxes for other nations; legal actions or regulatory trouble for US businesses – and offers to relieve the suffering in exchange for economic benefits. Paying up encourages the intimidator to demand further concessions.

This is the economic corollary to the president's attacks on court autonomy, pluralism and the rule of law. UK nationals might not be immediately endangered by deployment of the national guard in US cities under the pretext of law enforcement or a paramilitary immigration force that kidnaps people from the streets, but that doesn’t mean the corrosion of democracy in the US has no bearing UK interests.

Implications and Dangers

For one thing, the Maga project provides a template that a UK populist is emulating, prepared to introduce a similar system if his party ever form a government. Denying them that opportunity will be easier if the case opposing illiberal politics have been made in advance of the general election campaign.

That case should be made in principle, but it relates equally to pragmatic calculations of geopolitical influence. The UK government rejects there is a choice to be made between restored relations with Brussels and Washington, but the president demands loyalty. 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 respect treaties and global norms.

This conflict may be prevented if Trump’s reign turns out to be a temporary phase. His age is advanced. Perhaps a replacement, supported by a moderate Congress, will reverse the US republic’s slide into tyranny. It is possible. But is it the likeliest scenario in a country where political violence is being accepted at an alarming rate? How likely of an smooth transition away from a governing group that unites dogmatic believers, white supremacists, eccentric billionaire idealists and corrupt profiteers who label critics in as disloyal?

These are not people who gracefully step down at the polls, or even run the risk of impartial votes. These aren't actors on whose principles and decisions Britain should be betting its future wealth or national security.