Keir Starmer seemed to handle almost everything perfectly during his visit. Instead of using the British Embassy’s usual Jaguars and Land Rovers, he chose to ride in a Chevy Suburban, likely part of the Secret Service’s fleet of bulletproof vehicles. This small gesture might distract Trump from the fact that the UK exports £8 billion worth of cars to the US annually, making America the largest market for British car exports.
However, it’s unlikely to change Trump’s belief that reciprocity is key to his trade policies. Currently, the US taxes imported cars at 2.5%, while the UK imposes a 10% import duty and a 20% VAT on American cars. To make matters worse, the 20% VAT is applied to the total value of the car, including the 10% tariff. This is something Trump undoubtedly sees as unfair.
Interestingly, Starmer and the Labour Party had opposed Brexit, which might now work in Britain’s favor by sparing it from the tariffs Trump plans to impose on the EU. During a press conference, Trump praised Brexit, calling it a good idea and expressing confidence that it would prove beneficial over time. Starmer is now leveraging Brexit to position Britain as distinct from the EU, which Trump has criticized as being designed to disadvantage America. This strategy seems to be working, as Trump hinted at the possibility of favorable trade agreements with the UK, suggesting that tariffs might not be as necessary between two friendly nations as they are with the EU.
Trump could justify exempting the UK from tariffs by pointing to America’s $12 billion trade surplus with Britain, the significant British investment in the US, and the UK’s decision to join America in refusing to sign a program for regulating AI initiated by Macron and Modi. At the very least, the negotiating teams will need to come up with a deal that allows Trump to claim he has fulfilled his promise to treat the UK differently from the EU.
Starmer also gained some advantage from Trump’s announcement of joint plans to develop AI and other technologies. While the specifics of this collaboration remain unclear, it could include agreements on minimal regulation and an end to costly lawsuits against American tech companies. Trump has criticized these lawsuits, particularly those targeting Google’s search and advertising business and Apple’s dominance in the mobile browser and app markets, as driven by envy.
Starmer’s decision to bring Foreign Secretary David Lammy along was another interesting move. Lammy had previously called Trump a “woman-hating neo-Nazi sympathizer,” but it seemed that all was forgiven during a friendly dinner at Mar-a-Lago. However, Lammy later resumed his criticism, calling Trump’s interest in Greenland “destabilizing” and expressing frustration over Trump’s demands for NATO members to increase defense spending. Lammy also dismissed Trump’s claims of negotiating with Putin, stating he saw no evidence that Putin was willing to engage in talks.
Despite Lammy’s presence, Starmer managed to maintain a positive atmosphere, partly due to his use of the Royal Family as a diplomatic tool. King Charles’ invitation for Trump to make an unprecedented second state visit was a highlight of the trip, overshadowing any potential tensions.
The personal dynamic between Starmer and Trump appeared cordial, with both leaders exchanging pleasantries. Trump seemed confident and in control, answering questions directly, though he avoided addressing whether he would apologize to President Zelensky for calling him a dictator. Starmer, on the other hand, appeared more cautious, often deferring to the work of their respective teams.
Starmer sought Trump’s commitment to support Europe if Putin violated any agreements resulting from their negotiations. Trump, however, expressed confidence that Putin would keep his word this time, despite his history of breaking treaties. Trump avoided embarrassing Starmer by emphasizing the longstanding alliance between the two countries and suggesting that American investment in Ukraine’s natural resources would deter Russian aggression. He also noted that Winston Churchill’s bust had been returned to its “rightful place” in the Oval Office but made it clear that America would not provide security guarantees for Europe, insisting that Europe should handle its own defense. This felt like a parent gently telling a child it was time to remove the training wheels from their bike. Starmer is likely to secure promises of intelligence and logistical support for European and British troops on the Ukrainian border, while US troops remain in Poland as planned, allowing America to focus on the Indo-Pacific region.
A significant policy difference between the two leaders emerged when discussing the Gaza ceasefire. Trump expressed uncertainty about extending the truce, while Starmer seized the opportunity to score political points at home. He spoke emotionally about a British citizen released in a hostage deal and expressed sympathy for Palestinians trying to return to their homes, advocating for a two-state solution. These positions directly contradicted Trump’s proposals, and the President responded by highlighting the poor condition of freed hostages. This exchange underscored the growing divide between the two leaders on Middle East policy.
Starmer seems to believe that the special relationship between the UK and the US allows him to expect strong support from Trump for Britain’s post-deal policy in Ukraine, while Trump can anticipate criticism of his Middle East policies in return. Trump, being a transactional leader, expects something in return for every favor. It remains to be seen how and when Trump will respond to Starmer’s use of the “bully pulpit” to challenge his policies.
