No US president has ever been as reckless with American values and interests as Donald Trump. While the United Kingdom’s political establishment remains reluctant to challenge him for fear of straining diplomatic ties, it must refuse to be complicit in his malign policies, particularly his abandonment of Ukraine.
LONDON – US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations, and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem, and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath.
For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the United Kingdom’s “special relationship” with the United States. Following their White House meeting, both UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Trump reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining it.
This strategic partnership has been a cornerstone of Britain’s foreign and security policies since 1946, when former Prime Minister Winston Churchill, in a landmark speech in Fulton, Missouri, famously warned that “an Iron Curtain has descended” across Europe. In what was arguably the most consequential speech in Britain’s postwar history, Churchill maintained that “neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organization, will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples.” To that end, “a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States” was essential.
Admittedly, that relationship has always mattered far more to the UK than to the US. Over the years, it has rested on the UK’s ostensibly independent nuclear deterrent, extensive intelligence sharing, military cooperation, and a shared approach to global threats. For many – including myself – it has also been defined by deep affection, gratitude, and admiration.
My lifelong involvement in domestic and international politics has been shaped by an early political baptism in the US, making me an avowed Americanophile. That is why it is so painful to see a US administration fall so far short of the values America has long championed.
Since Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech, the US-UK relationship has been regarded as the linchpin of the Western-led liberal order. As its undisputed leader, the US has long served as a model for open societies worldwide.
At a time of escalating global turmoil, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided.
Subscribe to Digital or Digital Plus now to secure your discount.
Subscribe Now
Churchill’s vision of an open society was built on a shared commitment to democratic governance, the rule of law, judicial independence, and resistance to tyranny and oligarchy. It emphasized civility in political life; recognized the moral duty to help the world’s poor and oppressed; and championed the establishment of international organizations dedicated to maintaining world peace, along with defensive alliances committed to upholding international law and self-determination. Crucially, open societies depended on strong economic partnerships, rejecting the kind of protectionism that fueled the Great Depression.
While Trump occasionally echoes longstanding US policies, no president has ever played as fast and loose with American values and interests. It is impossible to imagine any of his predecessors inciting an attack on the country’s democratic institutions over fabricated claims of election fraud or pardoning those who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Likewise, no US president – with the exception of Richard Nixon – used the presidency to exact revenge on their rivals. None of them would have handed a billionaire oligarch like Elon Musk free rein to fire federal workers and dismantle America’s foreign-aid programs. And none was entangled in a web of commercial conflicts of interest as vast and complex as Trump’s.
Certainly, no American president in the past 70 years would have offered Ukraine to Russian President Vladimir Putin on a silver platter, let alone demanded that the Ukrainians hand over their mineral riches to the US.
Given this reality, Starmer must ask himself whether the UK and Trump’s America still share any values. At the very least, Britain must refuse to be complicit in Trump’s malign policies. That does not mean that the UK should be hostile toward its longtime ally, but it must not debase itself by yielding to Trump’s every demand.
To mitigate this danger, British policymakers must take four key steps. First, to maintain credibility on Ukraine and address the threat posed by Russian aggression, they must boost defense spending – as Starmer already plans to do – despite the UK’s fiscal constraints. They should also collaborate with NATO-aligned EU member states to establish a European rearmament bank.
Second, although Brexit prevents the UK from leading efforts to secure Ukraine’s accession to the European Union, it should aim to replicate any economic or trade benefits Ukraine gains from EU membership. Policymakers must heed the lesson of the 1930s: appeasing bullies only emboldens them.
Third, British policymakers must remind their American allies that no country – not even a superpower – can make itself safe by focusing exclusively on rival major powers. History shows that great-power conflicts often originate in smaller states. Consider Serbia before World War I, Czechoslovakia and Poland before World War II, and Manchuria in the 1930s. As Mark Twain famously put it, “God created war so that Americans would learn geography.”
Fourth, America could use a reminder of the importance of soft power. Strength alone does not inspire genuine support; when a country is viewed as relying on coercion to maintain its dominance, the long-term consequences are likely to be costly.
A Canadian friend once told me he dreads having his accent mistaken for an American one, lamenting that he couldn’t find a lapel pin that reads, “Don’t blame me; I’m from Canada.” I still admire America’s history, culture, and values, but with Trump in power, I am glad my accent sets me apart.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
Former US President Barack Obama tried to move beyond the fearmongering of the George W. Bush era and unite the country around his own political persona. But as initial optimism gave way to disillusionment, fear once again took hold, setting the stage for the rise of Donald Trump.
reflects on how the politics promoted by America’s first Black president gave rise to its first felonious one.
LONDON – US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations, and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem, and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath.
For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the United Kingdom’s “special relationship” with the United States. Following their White House meeting, both UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Trump reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining it.
This strategic partnership has been a cornerstone of Britain’s foreign and security policies since 1946, when former Prime Minister Winston Churchill, in a landmark speech in Fulton, Missouri, famously warned that “an Iron Curtain has descended” across Europe. In what was arguably the most consequential speech in Britain’s postwar history, Churchill maintained that “neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organization, will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples.” To that end, “a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States” was essential.
Admittedly, that relationship has always mattered far more to the UK than to the US. Over the years, it has rested on the UK’s ostensibly independent nuclear deterrent, extensive intelligence sharing, military cooperation, and a shared approach to global threats. For many – including myself – it has also been defined by deep affection, gratitude, and admiration.
My lifelong involvement in domestic and international politics has been shaped by an early political baptism in the US, making me an avowed Americanophile. That is why it is so painful to see a US administration fall so far short of the values America has long championed.
Since Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech, the US-UK relationship has been regarded as the linchpin of the Western-led liberal order. As its undisputed leader, the US has long served as a model for open societies worldwide.
Winter Sale: Save 40% on a new PS subscription
At a time of escalating global turmoil, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided.
Subscribe to Digital or Digital Plus now to secure your discount.
Subscribe Now
Churchill’s vision of an open society was built on a shared commitment to democratic governance, the rule of law, judicial independence, and resistance to tyranny and oligarchy. It emphasized civility in political life; recognized the moral duty to help the world’s poor and oppressed; and championed the establishment of international organizations dedicated to maintaining world peace, along with defensive alliances committed to upholding international law and self-determination. Crucially, open societies depended on strong economic partnerships, rejecting the kind of protectionism that fueled the Great Depression.
While Trump occasionally echoes longstanding US policies, no president has ever played as fast and loose with American values and interests. It is impossible to imagine any of his predecessors inciting an attack on the country’s democratic institutions over fabricated claims of election fraud or pardoning those who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Likewise, no US president – with the exception of Richard Nixon – used the presidency to exact revenge on their rivals. None of them would have handed a billionaire oligarch like Elon Musk free rein to fire federal workers and dismantle America’s foreign-aid programs. And none was entangled in a web of commercial conflicts of interest as vast and complex as Trump’s.
Certainly, no American president in the past 70 years would have offered Ukraine to Russian President Vladimir Putin on a silver platter, let alone demanded that the Ukrainians hand over their mineral riches to the US.
Given this reality, Starmer must ask himself whether the UK and Trump’s America still share any values. At the very least, Britain must refuse to be complicit in Trump’s malign policies. That does not mean that the UK should be hostile toward its longtime ally, but it must not debase itself by yielding to Trump’s every demand.
To mitigate this danger, British policymakers must take four key steps. First, to maintain credibility on Ukraine and address the threat posed by Russian aggression, they must boost defense spending – as Starmer already plans to do – despite the UK’s fiscal constraints. They should also collaborate with NATO-aligned EU member states to establish a European rearmament bank.
Second, although Brexit prevents the UK from leading efforts to secure Ukraine’s accession to the European Union, it should aim to replicate any economic or trade benefits Ukraine gains from EU membership. Policymakers must heed the lesson of the 1930s: appeasing bullies only emboldens them.
Third, British policymakers must remind their American allies that no country – not even a superpower – can make itself safe by focusing exclusively on rival major powers. History shows that great-power conflicts often originate in smaller states. Consider Serbia before World War I, Czechoslovakia and Poland before World War II, and Manchuria in the 1930s. As Mark Twain famously put it, “God created war so that Americans would learn geography.”
Fourth, America could use a reminder of the importance of soft power. Strength alone does not inspire genuine support; when a country is viewed as relying on coercion to maintain its dominance, the long-term consequences are likely to be costly.
A Canadian friend once told me he dreads having his accent mistaken for an American one, lamenting that he couldn’t find a lapel pin that reads, “Don’t blame me; I’m from Canada.” I still admire America’s history, culture, and values, but with Trump in power, I am glad my accent sets me apart.