london
—
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is a down-to-earth, legal, and modest man, but not one prone to bombast. But when he sat next to President Donald Trump in the Oval Office last February, he began speaking like a host.
“This is something really special,” Starmer said, brandishing a letter from King Charles III inviting Trump to make his second state visit to Britain. “This has never happened before. This is unprecedented… This is truly historic. This is an unprecedented second state visit.”
The uncharacteristic Starmer outburst showed how the government intends to respond to the second-term US president. He hopes to use his penchant for flattery and royalty to reap rewards ranging from lower tariffs than those imposed on the European Union to continued U.S. aid to Ukraine.
European countries react to US-Israel-Iran war
For a while, that strategy proved to be quite effective. But now it seems to have stalled. President Trump has criticized all of America’s allies for their reluctance to support the United States militarily in the war with Iran, but he has been harshly critical of Starmer by name. “We’re not dealing with Winston Churchill,” President Trump said on March 3, suggesting Britain was no longer the “Rolls-Royce of allies.”
Given the venom of President Trump’s broadside against Britain, a growing number of lawmakers are questioning whether it would be wise for Prince Charles to visit the United States this spring. Although no state visit has been confirmed, the king is widely expected to visit Washington DC in April to celebrate the 250th anniversary of US independence.
“The last thing we want to do is embarrass Her Majesty,” Labor MP Emily Thornberry said on Tuesday. “I think we need to think carefully about whether it’s appropriate to proceed now.”
“I think it would be safer to postpone,” Mr Thornberry told the BBC’s morning radio show.
Trump’s feud with Starmer began when Britain initially rejected the president’s request to use military bases to support the war against Iran, which Starmer understood to be illegal.
But Mr Starmer joined the defense against Iranian retaliation after attacks on British military assets in the Middle East.
President Trump has since ridiculed Starmer’s apparent offer of help and accused him of not doing more.
On March 7, when Trump claimed Britain was “finally considering sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East,” he told Starmer not to worry. “We don’t need people joining the war after we’ve already won!”
On Monday, after the United Kingdom and other countries balked at President Trump’s appeal to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, President Trump said London’s reluctance to send warships to clear the waterway of mines was “terrible.”
The US president claimed that when he asked Mr Starmer to send assets to help reopen the Channel, the prime minister said he needed to discuss options with his team. Trump said he responded, “You don’t have to worry about your team…You’re the prime minister. You make the decisions…I’m very sorry.”
Peter Westmacott, Britain’s ambassador to Washington from 2012 to 2016, said Trump’s disdain for Starmer showed the limits of Britain’s flattery strategy.
“Mr Starmer has spent 18 months trying to salvage the relationship by not taking the bait and making secret deals,” Westmacott told CNN. “He doesn’t have a big ego himself…He tries to use the kind of calmness and reason and argument that appeals to Trump. But it’s clear that that doesn’t always work, and you never know what he’s going to say the next day.”
Despite his deepening rift with Starmer, Mr Trump hinted this week that a state visit with King Charles was planned soon. During a press conference at the White House on Monday, President Trump said that once his “grand banquet hall” is built, it will be used when visiting foreign leaders.
“One example is the King of Great Britain, the King of England, and he’s a great guy. He’s going to be here soon,” Trump said.
The next day, during a bilateral Oval Office meeting with Ireland’s Michael Martin, Trump told reporters that Prince Charles would be visiting “soon.”
President Trump’s unpredictability could influence the UK government’s decision on whether to recommend the king bring forward his state visit. Downing Street doesn’t want to risk exposing the monarch to President Trump’s frequent tirade against Britain, but it also doesn’t want to risk angering the president by abandoning the plan.
Still, Westmacott said, “There may come a moment when the government decides the risk of pursuing this policy is greater than the risk of angering Donald Trump.” “The latter risk would be reduced if both governments agree that a postponement makes sense,” he added.
Asked on Tuesday whether the King’s state visit should go ahead, a Downing Street spokesperson declined to comment on the royal family’s future involvement, stressing details of the visit were “yet to be confirmed”.
Mr Starmer has faced criticism both abroad and at home for what he perceives to be a great deal of wariness over Britain’s support for the US war against Iran, although many of his domestic opponents have since reversed their positions.
Nigel Farage, leader of the new Reform Britain party and a Trump ally, initially said: “We need to take the gloves off. We need to accept that we are in this together with Americans and Israelis.” But Mr Farage, who found Trump’s war to be deeply unpopular, said Britain should not get involved in “a new foreign war”.
Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, also initially supported the US-Israel participation in the offensive. She has since backtracked, too, and even defended the prime minister from President Trump’s attacks.
“I’m Keir Starmer’s biggest critic. He’s done a lot of things wrong,” Mr Badenoch said on Tuesday. “But I also think the words that came out of the White House were wrong. This war of words and bickering is very childish. They may think it’s funny, but… it’s totally unseemly.”
