In the world of Donald Trump’s White House, personal chemistry often determines political outcomes. For British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, his first meeting with Trump was as much about substance as it was about managing the erratic, transactional deportment of the U.S. president. From the outset, the meeting between Starmer and Trump was framed by spectacle.
The invitation from King Charles to grant Trump an unprecedented second state visit was a clear diplomatic move to stroke his ego. Trump, never one to downplay his own significance, basked in the moment: “It’s a great honor, because it’s never happened before,” he declared at their joint press conference. Yet beneath the warm words and diplomatic pleasantries, sharp policy differences on Ukraine, trade and the future of the transatlantic alliance loomed large.
Starmer arrived in Washington with high stakes: the future of U.S.-U.K. relations, the ongoing war in Ukraine and the prospects of a trade deal with America. The British prime minister had the unenviable task of tackling a White House that operates less on alliances and more on Trump’s personal whims.
Starmer’s strategy was clear: flatter Trump while subtly steering the conversation toward British and European priorities. He praised Trump for supposedly creating conditions for a Ukraine ceasefire — despite skepticism in both London and Kyiv over whether such a deal would genuinely serve peace or merely hand Russian President Vladimir Putin the breathing space he seeks.
While Trump professed confidence in Putin’s promises, Starmer was more cautious, emphasizing the need for any truce to be enforceable and enduring. But for all of Starmer’s diplomatic finesse, the outcome was largely predictable. Trump gave no clear assurances on the UK’s push for greater U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine after a peace deal, leaving Europe once again in a state of strategic limbo. Trump’s insistence that he “trusts” Putin to honor a ceasefire stands in sharp contrast to Starmer’s careful diplomacy, rooted in NATO’s strategic priorities.
However, one of the few areas where Starmer seemed to make headway was on trade. Trump hinted that the UK might avoid new tariffs, remarking that Starmer had “earned whatever the hell they pay him over there” in negotiations. This was a small but tangible win for Britain. However, Trump’s history of transactional politics suggests that any relief from tariffs would likely come with strings attached.
The U.K. may find itself forced into a broader trade deal with conditions heavily skewed in Washington’s favor. “You are a very tough negotiator … I’m not sure I like that, but OK,” Trump quipped, only half-jokingly. While Trump suggested that a trade deal might alleviate the need for tariffs on U.K. exports, negotiations remain far from finalized.
While Starmer refrained from publicly challenging Trump’s views, his visit was as much about advocating for Europe’s security as it was about U.K.-US relations. For Europe, the larger concern is Trump’s continued “America First” approach to economic policy. While Starmer made a compelling case for the U.K.’s role as a top investment destination, Trump’s view of international partnerships remains transactional at best.
His priority remains leveraging economic power to extract concessions, not reinforcing longstanding alliances. Trump’s casual dismissal of European security concerns — telling his Cabinet that “we’ll have Europe take care of that” — illustrates the widening gap between Washington and its traditional allies.
The European Union is now scrambling to build its own collective defense mechanisms, recognizing that it can no longer rely on an “America First” White House. Yet the harsh reality is that any European deterrent force will take years to materialize, and without U.S. backing, it risks being more symbolic than substantive.
Nonetheless, Starmer’s visit underscored a sobering reality: The so-called “special relationship” between the U.K. and U.S. is no longer what it once was. While Trump called Starmer a “special man,” the relationship itself felt transactional rather than rooted in deep mutual trust. Unlike Emmanuel Macron, who publicly corrected Trump during his own visit earlier in the week, Starmer opted for a risk-averse approach, avoiding direct criticism even on controversial topics like Trump’s threats toward Canada, a fellow Commonwealth nation.
But the price of this caution may be the U.K.’s diminishing influence in shaping U.S. policy on critical global issues. For Britain, the challenge is twofold: maintaining a special relationship with the U.S. while recognizing that this relationship has changed. If Starmer’s performance in Washington is any indication, he understands this new reality. His measured, pragmatic diplomacy may not have won any grand concessions from Trump, but it kept the door open for future negotiations — an achievement in itself when dealing with an administration that views traditional alliances as burdens rather than assets.
Trump’s unpredictability ensures that nothing is set in stone. But if Starmer’s visit revealed anything, it’s that Europe and the U.K. must prepare for a future where America’s engagement is no longer taken for granted. The EU must accelerate efforts to strengthen its defense capabilities and reduce its dependency on Washington.
Starmer’s challenge, alongside European counterparts, will be to create a security framework that can withstand the unpredictability of a Trump 2.0. Factually speaking, Starmer’s visit was not about seeking Trump’s approval. It was about adapting to a shifting global order.
If Europe is to remain secure and relevant, it must do so on its own terms, while recognizing that America’s role in the world has changed. That is the reality of the evolving transatlantic relationship with Trump 2.0 in the White House.
Imran Khalid is a physician and has a master’s degree in international relations.
