With all the attention in Westminster focused on Washington, it is easy to forget how much attention is not being paid in return.
Unlike Mexico and Canada, the UK does not have a long border with the US. Unlike China, it cannot match America’s superpower supremacy on the planet. And it doesn’t export more goods than it imports across the Atlantic, a trait Donald Trump despises about the European Union.
No American president would be indifferent to a country that claims this relationship is “special.” The historical ties are strong and will influence the decisions President Trump makes when the small United Kingdom is put on his radar.
In the meantime, all speculation and explanations about which British politicians enjoy the level of intimacy with the new government should be taken by all concerned as a sign of helplessness.
Nigel Farage is constantly promoting his services as a Trump whisperer to anyone who will listen. Various former Conservative cabinet ministers fluttered around the inauguration. There is no evidence that flames bother moths.
There are ideological affinities between Britain’s radical right and the MAGA movement, with some stooges mixed between the two camps. Those in power make room for sycophancy. But true insiders know that boasting about influence puts their access at risk.
Power talks to power. If Trump wants something from Britain, the person on the other end of the phone will be the Prime Minister, not Clacton, if a deal is struck. The rest is noise, useless and dangerous if it interferes with diplomatic signals, but not the essence of the relationship. still.
The more serious threat comes from Elon Musk, who is actually an influential figure in US affairs (not to mention the richest person alive). The founders of Billionaire Whether President Trump believes it or not, he may adopt a position to bully the prime minister if it suits his policies.
Far-right forces will help Uncle Sam by pretending to be dissidents demanding regime change. This mercenary service to an unfriendly foreign power will not elicit condemnation from supposedly patriotic conservatives.
The challenge for Starmer is to establish a working dialogue with the White House before it is drowned out by malicious musketry. And he will have to do so while fulfilling his pledge to strengthen ties with the EU.
The prime minister denies any sense of tension. He says there is no conflict between his ambition to maintain the specialness of Britain’s transatlantic partnership and Europe’s “reset” policy. He “totally rejects” the idea that it is an either-or choice, arguing that the national interest requires the development of both alliances.
What he says is true up to a point. The hard part is knowing when you’ve reached that point. The right will encourage Starmer to demonstrate ever more fanatical loyalty to Trump and justify or celebrate the new bout of tyranny. The prime minister will also be under pressure from his own party to prove he has a conscience and finds the whole scene disgusting.
But Britain cannot afford a sudden break from American power, and foreign liberals cannot shame the US government into something it is not. Realpolitik doesn’t have to be gruesome, but it’s necessarily cautious. Even if the prime minister is secretly surprised by President Trump, he needs to think about how to reprimand him and utter his words carefully.
It’s not just domestic audiences that need to hear a dignified repudiation of Trumpism. European leaders will want to know that Mr Starmer is seeking to approach them in a spirit of solidarity. He will need to bring to the table the concept of future partnerships, as well as a shopping list of amendments to the existing Brexit settlement.
In the first stage, the interests of both parties are aligned. Starmer wants a security deal. Trump’s disdain for NATO and his tolerance for Vladimir Putin have made the EU keen to partner with Britain’s military and intelligence capabilities. But then it gets messy. The further a defense deal progresses, the more difficult it becomes to collide with questions of institutional integration – which institutions can the UK participate in? – And arms procurement – who buys what from whom?
Downing Street has a plan to reset the EU. Defense cooperation creates goodwill and fosters friendly conversations about reducing border tensions on trade. That order does not hold if Brussels faces a barrage of US tariffs before negotiations even begin, while Mr Starmer is lobbying the White House for an exemption.
President Trump’s hostility towards the EU is both personal and ideological. He dislikes it as an expression of the idea that mutual economic dependence among nations, backed by international law and treaties, can be a source of collective strength and prosperity. He is angry about the economic clout of the single market. He sees its regulatory scope as an affront to US hegemony and the entire European social model as a decadent racket achieved by free-riding on Pentagon security guarantees. He wants to divide and conquer and as a soft power player, neutralize and disarm Brussels.
Embattled European leaders will want signs that Britain is a full-time ally, not a sideline temporary agent tormenting the United States. Meanwhile, Reform and Conservative parties will howl that Labor is selling the country into the yoke of Brussels and wasting the chance to complete the Brexit revolution with a US trade deal on whatever terms President Trump dictates.
To navigate this labyrinth, Starmer needs clear priorities based on consistent strategic objectives. When uncertainty is so high, there is a real case for refusing to choose sides and keeping all channels open. But there are difficult choices ahead and the Prime Minister cannot wait for his usual sombre approach.
Geopolitical direction is not something that can be consulted or subject to a review to be reported in 2028. We are now in the Trump vortex, a frenzy of bewildering events and conflicting demands. It can paralyze leaders who prefer to collate data and consider options before making decisions. My anxiety never stops. It’s a hallmark of President Trump’s design. The risk, therefore, is that pragmatism mutates into passivity. If we wait too long to choose a Prime Minister, we could end up leaving the choice to people who do not have Britain’s interests at heart.
