by Rajnish Singh
This imbalance is on display this week with Donald Trump’s return to the UK, making him the first sitting US president to be granted a second state visit. The trip has been carefully choreographed to appeal to Trump’s ego, with a lavish welcome at Windsor Castle from King Charles, a carriage procession, and a state banquet, a calculated use of the monarchy’s “soft power.”
It is a bold move by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and is more than about pomp and pageantry. His gamble breaks with diplomatic convention and reflects an era where personality and populism override policy, even as he wrestles with domestic challenges. These include the humiliating dismissal of his Washington ambassador, Peter Mandelson, over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, and the rise of Nigel Farage, Trump ally and Reform UK leader, who is surging in the polls. Starmer’s press team will be praying Trump avoids remarks that could embarrass him.
By confining the trip to Windsor and the prime minister’s retreat at Chequers, the government is tactfully keeping Trump away from major planned protests in London and sidestepping the risk of an address to Parliament, which is in recess. Several opposition leaders have already pledged to boycott the state banquet.
The trip is a crucial test of Starmer’s ability to act as a statesman while managing relations with a deeply divisive US leader. Even traditional Atlanticists are struggling to show affection for Trump. Max Hastings, former editor of the right-leaning Daily Telegraph, admitted he will be joining the usual “rent-a-mob” protests, such is his personal disdain. Security costs alone are expected to run into the millions of pounds.
But the stakes are high. Starmer hopes to leverage Trump’s trip to attract billions in investment from American tech giants such as Microsoft, Nvidia and OpenAI, focusing on artificial intelligence and quantum computing to advance the UK’s ambition of becoming a global tech leader. Trade is also on the table, with London pushing to resolve long-standing disputes over US tariffs on British steel and aluminium, a priority for British industry. The success of these talks will determine whether the trip is remembered for spectacle or substance.
Yet deep differences remain. Starmer’s government has been a staunch supporter of Kyiv, imposing sanctions on Russia and supplying military and humanitarian aid. This contrasts with Trump’s more transactional stance, marked by scepticism over continued funding for Ukraine and a desire for a quick peace deal. Chequers will provide an opportunity for Starmer to press the case for unity against Russian aggression and seek assurances of continued US support.
The war in Gaza could also expose divisions. Starmer faces pressure from Labour MPs to act against Israel amid a worsening humanitarian crisis, one even Trump has acknowledged. London has pledged to recognise the state of Palestine this September unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire and start negotiating towards a two-state solution. But this looks increasingly unlikely given Israel’s intensified assault on Gaza City and Trump’s unwavering support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The “special relationship” has weathered highs and lows, often backed by the British public, even when Tony Blair supported George W. Bush Junior’s invasion of Iraq. Built on shared interests and values, it now looks more fragile. Starmer’s invitation to Trump seems driven less by principle than by fear of tariffs. This week’s trip isn’t just theatre: he is using the spectacle of a state occasion to push his agenda and keep the UK–US bond alive as global politics shifts.
By: N. Peter Kramer
