Starmer’s Diplomatic Mission to Washington
When Sir Keir Starmer was asked about his feelings on the flight back to London after a whirlwind 24-hour trip to Washington, his response was straightforward: “I’m happy,” the Prime Minister remarked, giving a thumbs-up. This trip, however, was anything but ordinary; it represented a culmination of efforts dating back to July of last year when Labour first assumed power. Since then, ministers and their key aides have been working diligently to cultivate a positive relationship with Donald Trump’s camp, ensuring that they wouldn’t be sidelined amidst a potential Republican resurgence.
Starmer’s visit to Washington was meticulously planned and not merely a routine diplomatic engagement. In a rare move, some of the Prime Minister’s top advisers arrived in the American capital ahead of time to guarantee the trip’s success. Among those who accompanied Starmer was Morgan McSweeney, his influential chief of staff, who is often behind the scenes.
UK Government insiders noted that Starmer has strategically emphasized the importance of personal relationships with Trump. Following a promising initial meeting last year and several subsequent phone conversations, Starmer was cautiously optimistic about strengthening that connection.
A Royal Invitation
One highlight of the visit was Starmer’s deft political maneuvering—he publicly revealed a letter from King Charles inviting Trump for a historic second state visit. Such invitations are typically reserved for private discussions, with No 10 insisting that these matters fall under Buckingham Palace’s purview. However, it’s understood that the King is likely to comply with No 10’s requests, particularly in his role as a leading figure in UK diplomacy.
What is particularly noteworthy is the King’s invitation to Trump to visit Balmoral during his travels, suggesting that a stop at a “relatively near neighbour” could be arranged. This implies a potential visit to Dumfries House in Ayrshire, which is about a 45-minute drive from Trump’s golf course in Turnberry. The letter indicated that this meeting would serve not only to discuss various mutual interests but also to plan for an unprecedented second state visit by a U.S. president. Such an event would enhance the already special relationship between the two nations, something both Trump and Starmer are eager to cultivate.
Typically, second-term presidents are only invited for a casual tea, rather than a formal state visit. Nevertheless, it is thought that Trump would prefer his usual Diet Coke, while the King, respecting his guest’s dietary choices, would likely refrain from offering whisky. Hosting Trump at Balmoral or Dumfries House would provide a more personal atmosphere, akin to a weekend retreat, allowing for informal discussions on global challenges like international trade, tariffs, and the crucial importance of Scotland’s whisky industry.
Charles as Chief Diplomat
King Charles, embracing his role as a politically engaged monarch, has not hesitated to delve into international diplomacy. He notably met with Ursula von der Leyen to sign Rishi Sunak’s Windsor Framework and has engaged domestically by hosting Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Starmer at his housing project in Nansledan, Cornwall, just a day before the announcement of Labour’s new towns initiative.
Officials have remained tight-lipped regarding the coordination behind the letter’s unveiling, refusing to comment on discussions between No 10 and the Palace or whether Trump was informed in advance. However, sources suggest that this letter was the result of months of careful planning, aimed at ensuring a fruitful dialogue between the PM and President.
No 10 and Britain’s diplomats invested significant effort into crafting the right messages for the meeting, particularly as a state visit had been under consideration since Trump’s election victory. A Whitehall insider remarked, “The significance of this meeting has been on the mind of many; the hard work invested to make it as successful as possible was extensive.”
During the meeting, Trump appeared genuinely surprised by the King’s gesture. No 10 didn’t anticipate that he would showcase the King’s letter to the cameras, yet it turned out to be a masterstroke of political diplomacy, eliciting delight from Trump. Observers believe that one of Trump’s desires is to strengthen ties with the Royal Family and embrace the traditional view of British culture, something Starmer can facilitate.
Pomp and Circumstance
“What Trump loves is a lot of pomp and circumstance, and nobody does that better than the British,” a source in Washington commented. “He may not be well-versed in soccer or football, but place him in front of a large, cheering crowd, and he’ll have a great time without lifting a finger.”
Ultimately, the meeting evolved into a personal affair that exceeded the Prime Minister’s expectations. At the beginning of their discussions, Trump expressed admiration for Victoria Starmer, stating, “We’ve met a couple of times, and I’m very impressed with him, and very impressed with his wife. I must say, she’s a beautiful, great woman.”
In the lead-up to the trip, Starmer had signaled an acceleration in UK defense spending, a move designed to demonstrate Britain’s commitment to bolstering military capabilities amidst increasing global tensions. Privately, British officials acknowledged that the timing was deliberate, aiming to convey to Trump that the UK is serious about enhancing its role in European military strength.
Starmer’s strategy of aligning closely with Trump has drawn skepticism, but his close aides argue that it is justified given Trump’s strong preference for personal rapport. They humorously contrast Starmer’s budding friendship with the President against Trump’s evident disdain for Canada’s Justin Trudeau and the “theatrical” exchanges with Emmanuel Macron.
Starmer’s Lighthearted Remarks
Starmer kicked off his Washington visit with a witty speech at the British embassy, likening Trump to the new UK ambassador, Peter Mandelson. He quipped, “I’ve just arrived, but I can already sense a buzz in Washington. You can feel there’s a new leader. He’s a true one-off, a pioneer in business and politics. Many adore him, while others delight in opposing him. But to us, he’s just… Peter.”
Though humor isn’t Starmer’s strongest suit, his joke resonated with many attendees. One Washington dignitary remarked, “Keir was very funny! I thought he was just a bit dull, but that was genuinely entertaining.” The actual meeting proceeded smoothly, with the two leaders enjoying a meal of sea bass—an accommodating choice from the meat-loving Trump for the pescatarian Starmer.
For No 10 aides, this was a significant relief. Although they anticipated Trump would accept the invitation for a state visit extended by the King, they were aware of potential pitfalls in other discussions.
A Heated Exchange
The challenges of engaging with Trump became evident less than a day after Starmer’s apparent success in the Oval Office, when the same room was the scene of an intense shouting match between the President and Volodymyr Zelensky, with JD Vance involved as well. Starmer’s stance that Kyiv must always be included in negotiations—summed up as “no talks about Ukraine without Ukraine”—seemed increasingly jeopardized in light of these extraordinary events.
No 10 insiders emphasized the need to carefully formulate a response to these developments, which could elevate the stakes for an upcoming meeting of European allies in London.
Chagos Islands Negotiations
In other discussions, the future of the Chagos Islands, slated for handover from the UK to Mauritius but currently hosting an American naval base, seemed to be progressing positively with the U.S. administration, as reported by The i Paper. However, British officials were uncertain whether this topic had yet reached the President’s desk or how he might react. Thus, it was a significant relief when Trump expressed a willingness to approve the handover agreement during their Oval Office meeting.
The Challenge of Domestic Support
While fostering international friendships is vital, British prime ministers often find it challenging to maintain support from their domestic base. Starmer’s decision to fund an increase in defense spending—from 2.3% to 2.5% of GDP by 2027—through cuts to the international aid budget sparked considerable criticism from within his party.
- A Labour MP representing a broad coalition of dissent expressed, “Hundreds of millions across the globe are in dire need of humanitarian aid. The world’s poorest require more support, not less. Labour must remain a leader in humanitarian efforts to combat global poverty effectively and prevent instability.”
- Conversely, some party members supported Starmer’s decision, acknowledging the political necessity of prioritizing defense funding. A Labour councillor in a vulnerable area noted, “My constituents appreciate this move, and so do I.”
- When asked if this decision was a game changer, they responded, “To some extent, though it could be overshadowed by the Reform UK party. They might suggest even deeper cuts to aid, much like Trump.”
- A Labour backbencher argued, “It’s pointless to enhance public services if they risk being compromised by Russian hostility. We’re talking about an adversary that targets civilians, so we must ensure our defenses are robust. This is about our national survival.”
- They further contended, “Investing in defense isn’t merely a cost; it generates jobs and stimulates economic growth, particularly when sourced from the right UK manufacturers.”
- “Similar to the green investment fund, this initiative will yield regional growth beyond London and the South East,” they concluded.
