Interpreters aren't necessary when American leaders visit the UK, but that doesn’t mean Donald Trump and Keir Starmer will speak the same language this week. The UK prime minister will practise careful statesmanship, emphasising mutual advantage and historical alliance. Many of these ideas are meaningless to a president fluent only in personal gain.
An Examination in Contrasts
Considering the high chance of miscommunication between both leaders from such different ideological backgrounds – the showbiz demagogue and the lawyer technocrat – relations have been surprisingly cordial and, in Downing Street’s estimation, fruitful.
The contrast in styles has been used beneficially. Starmer's reserved attentiveness makes no competitive claim Trump's public spotlight.
Praise and Pragmatism
The US leader has complimented Starmer as a “decent fellow” with a “beautiful accent”. He's approved commercial conditions that are marginally less vindictive than the duties imposed on other EU nations. UK advocacy has been instrumental in softening White House disdain for the Atlantic alliance and pushing Trump towards doubt about Vladimir Putin’s motives in the ongoing conflict.
Managing the transatlantic relationship is among the rare achievements the dwindling group of supporters confidently cite. Privately, some Tory opponents admit this success. But among the restive ranks 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 price in diplomatic humiliation.
Flattery and Forethought
Those expecting the official trip may include some hint of government criticism for Trump's autocratic tendencies are set for letdown. Flattery and regal pomp to secure the UK's position as Trump’s most esteemed tributary are the primary objective.
Pre-cooked deals on atomic and digital collaboration will be unveiled. Awkward differences on foreign policy – Britain’s imminent recognition of a sovereign Palestine; America's ongoing tolerance 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. Although the individual fondness for the UK leader is sincere, it is a rare feeling in a leader whose power base is fueled by hostility to Labour Britain.
Dangers and Truths
Starmer can only pray that such biases remain hidden in some spontaneous televised riff on popular Maga themes – curtailing expression via online censorship; eroding native demographics in a growing influx of newcomers. Even if that doesn’t happen, the risk reveals a flaw in the strategy of unquestioning closeness with an inherently unreliable administration.
The case for Starmer’s method is that Britain’s economic and security interests are inseparable from US power and are likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Pursuing strategic decoupling due to dislike for the current leader would be myopic self-indulgence. Such influence as a junior ally might have over a prickly protector must be used discreetly behind closed doors. The more openly dissenting approach, sometimes showcased by Emmanuel Macron, is often ineffective. Besides, France is part of the EU. The UK's exit puts Britain in a different category in Trump’s mind and, it is said, thereby affords special advantages.
Vision and Vulnerability
This perspective was set out by a former envoy, shortly before his removal as ambassador to Washington. The thrust was that the current era will be defined by superpower rivalry between the US and China. The winner will be whichever leads in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and similar breakthroughs with awesome dual-use potential. Britain is unusually strong in these sectors, given its size.
In short, the nation is tied by common interests and post-Brexit realpolitik to join Team USA when the only alternative is a world order dictated by the Chinese Communist party. Whether desired or not, ties with Washington has become indispensable to the functioning of the country,” said the ex-ambassador.
That perspective will keep influencing the government’s foreign policy regardless of diplomatic appointments. There's accuracy about the new technological arms race but, crucially, it goes with the deep grain of the UK's pro-US leanings. It dismisses any need to work harder at closer ties with EU nations, which is a fiddly multilateral process. Involving complex moving parts and a habit to trigger uncomfortable discussions about worker movement. Starmer is making steady advances in his reset of EU relations. Talks on agricultural trade, military and power collaboration are ongoing. But the mechanics of building rapport with the White House are easier and the reward in political gratification comes quicker.
Volatility and Risk
The president negotiates briskly, but he cancels agreements just as fast. His promises aren't reliable. His commitments are conditional. Preferential treatment for British business might be promised, but not fulfilled, or partly implemented, and eventually withdrawn. Trump signed agreements in his initial presidency that count for nothing now. His method is extortion, the traditional strong-arm tactic. He inflicts pain – taxes for foreign governments; legal actions or regulatory trouble for US businesses – and proposes easing the suffering in return for economic benefits. Paying up encourages the bully to demand further concessions.
This is the financial parallel to Trump’s political assault on judicial independence, pluralism and the rule of law. British citizens might not be directly threatened by deployment of the national guard in American urban areas under the pretext of law enforcement or a armed border unit that detains individuals from public spaces, but it's incorrect to assume the erosion of freedoms in the US has no bearing British well-being.
Lessons and Liabilities
Firstly, the Maga project provides a template that a UK populist is admiring, prepared to introduce a similar system if his party ever form a government. Denying them that opportunity will be simpler if the case opposing authoritarian nationalism have been rehearsed before the national vote.
That argument should be made in principle, but it relates equally to practical considerations of global sway. The UK government denies there is a choice to be made between restored relations with Brussels and the US, but Trump is a jealous master. Fealty to the dominant power 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 prevented if the president's term turns out to be a temporary phase. His age is advanced. Maybe a successor, supported by a moderate Congress, will halt the nation's decline into autocracy. It is possible. But is that probable in a country where electoral unrest is being normalised at an alarming rate? What is the probability of an smooth transition away from a governing group that combines dogmatic believers, racial extremists, eccentric billionaire idealists and corrupt profiteers who label critics in shades of treason?
Such individuals who humbly surrender power at the ballot box, or even run the risk of fair elections. These aren't actors on whose principles and decisions Britain should be betting its future prosperity or safety.
