The Breakup: A quick death for the ‘special relationship’ under a second Trump term 

Within the first few days of November, America had found itself with a new President. Beyond being hugely important inside of the U.S., this was an election that was being followed keenly around the world. Five months ago, another record election took place, this time to elect a leader of the opposition party for the first time in 14 years. Kier Starmer, who represented a centre-left Labour party secured a sweeping victory with 411 out of 650 seats in the British Parliament. 

The reasons why Starmer would have preferred a Democrat leader as a close ally for the next four years are relatively clear. Similar internationalist outlooks and a mutual interest in an increase rather than a decline in government aid would have made for natural bed fellows with the Labour Party. His emphasis on social justice and government accountability at home and increased interventionism abroad are about as far from Trump’s protectionist ‘America first’ position as you can get. 

However, much like the proportion of the U.S. who did not vote for Trump, this is something that other world leaders, including the U.K. Prime Minister, will have to deal with. 

On Nov. 6 the Prime Minister readily made a call to offer President-Elect Trump a “hearty congratulations.” It is alleged that they exchanged pleasantries about their meeting in September and Trump told the Prime Minister that he looked forward to keeping up relations with a country he had a great affinity for. However, this should not be mistaken for the same degree of warmth that the relationship has had in the past. Over the next four years, the relationship between the president and the PM will likely become tepid. 

Both Starmer and Trump have gained the mandate to be more assertive in the role, the problem is, they are running in opposite directions. Trump’s reinvigorated brand of “America first” rhetoric leaves little room for the prime minister. At the same time, members of Starmer’s cabinet have previously belittled the President-Elect, calling him a “tyrant” and “a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath.” Admitted or otherwise, this will certainly take a toll on already strained relations between the president and the prime minister. 

Prime Minister’s Questions provides a weekly opportunity for those outside of the governing party to scrutinise both the Prime Minister and the wider government. During last week’s session, Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the oppositional Conservative Party, said the U.S. was the U.K.’s single biggest trade partner and warned the prime minister he would need to “look after the special relationship.” It may be apparent however that this is not currently a priority for Starmer. The prime minister has already been challenged on the amount of time he spends abroad, and it looks like spending greater amounts of time with the new president will put him in the spotlight for reasons that are undesirable. 

The diplomatic relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States is something that has been decades in the making. At its height, it drew together two of the world’s preeminent powers under the banner of liberal economic policy and conservative social policy. This was characterised by the joint premiership of Ronald Raegan and Margaret Thatcher. Today, it seems that Starmer and Trump could not be a more ideologically distant pairing. Trump’s strong protectionism and dislike for robust foreign interventionism will put a great dampener on Starmer’s diplomacy and liberal outreach to other world powers. 

As Trump begins to firm up the cabinet appointments in his new administration, one thing is clear. The foreign policy in his second term will look to rely more on America and be more transactional than before. This makes it more likely that Starmer’s seat at the small and rather paranoid table of people that President Trump trusts will disappear. This may also lead to an ideological dog fight in which Starmer comes out more than wounded. 

If it seems there are not many good options for Britain in terms of its foreign policy strategy with the U.S. right now it is exactly because there are not. Like many whirlwind romances, it may be time for Britain to consider whether or not their relationship with the U.S. was built to last. As both countries become wrapped in what will be beneficial for themselves, rather than mutually beneficial, it could become likely that the Western world will end up seeing red.