London – Keir Starmer is about to take on his biggest diplomatic challenge yet.
For months, the British prime minister has carefully cultivated a cordial relationship with Donald Trump, offering praise and maintaining a friendly tone even before Trump’s election victory in November. In return, Trump has described Starmer as “very nice.”
Now, as Starmer heads to Washington, he hopes to turn that goodwill into meaningful action. At a time when Ukraine’s future hangs in the balance, he positions himself as a bridge-builder—someone who can temper Trump’s adversarial instincts and advocate for Western interests.
But there’s another possibility: Starmer may find that he has been building a bridge to nowhere. He and Trump are far from natural allies; their political histories and worldviews differ starkly. While Starmer emphasizes the “special relationship” between the UK and the US, that bond is facing turbulence. The two leaders have divergent priorities, and the stakes could not be higher.
Claire Ainsley, Starmer’s former executive director of policy, summed up the significance: “This visit is a major test for the relationships between Europe and the United States, as well as Europe and the United Kingdom.”
Urgency on Ukraine
Trump’s approach to Ukraine has cast uncertainty over the transatlantic alliance, much like his stance on NATO and other international relationships. He has entertained Russian President Vladimir Putin’s advances, criticized Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelensky, and largely excluded Europe from negotiations concerning the war’s resolution.
Starmer follows French President Emmanuel Macron, who visited Washington earlier this week, in trying to mend these fractured ties. His visit also precedes Zelensky’s trip to Washington, where discussions will center on securing a peace deal that upholds Ukraine’s sovereignty without ceding occupied territory—one that Europe and the US can both support.
Britain and France are spearheading efforts to assemble a potential European peacekeeping force, which could be deployed if a ceasefire is reached. However, the plan hinges on an American security presence, likely relying on air support from NATO bases in Poland or Romania.
On Monday, Trump stated, “Europe is going to make sure nothing happens” after a deal is agreed. Starmer, however, insists that Europe cannot bear this responsibility alone. He has reiterated that without American security guarantees, Putin could strike again. Speaking to reporters en route to Washington, he underscored that point: American support is essential to ensuring lasting peace.
A key objective of Starmer’s visit is to persuade Trump to involve Zelensky in discussions about Ukraine’s future. European leaders are deeply concerned that Trump could push a settlement favoring Moscow, sidelining Ukraine in the process.
However, Starmer faces a challenge—this meeting is far more crucial to him than to Trump. The US president has shown little regard for European leaders, has threatened new tariffs, and has overturned decades of US foreign policy that once prioritized European security.
In a move to gain favor, Starmer announced on Tuesday that Britain would increase its defense spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, rising to 3% in the next decade. This marks a significant acceleration in military investment, which experts say is urgently needed given the British military’s depleted state. A major review of the army’s capabilities is underway, and its conclusions are expected to highlight the need for substantial reinforcements.
“We must adjust our national security stance because a generational challenge demands a generational response,” Starmer declared, acknowledging that recent global events have necessitated swift action.
A Complicated Relationship
This visit will test Europe’s dual approach to dealing with Trump. Some leaders, like Germany’s likely next chancellor Friedrich Merz, advocate distancing Europe from US influence, calling for greater independence. Others, including Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and Starmer, believe Trump can still be persuaded to align with Western interests.
As Ainsley explained, “Britain’s stability and Starmer’s leadership give him a unique role in these discussions, at a time when other European leaders may struggle to engage with Trump effectively.”
Yet, past tensions remain. Many in Starmer’s Labour Party have been vocal critics of Trump. As an opposition MP, Starmer himself once stated that Trump’s endorsement of Boris Johnson proved Johnson was “unfit to be prime minister.”
Trump has also taken aim at Starmer. Last October, he accused the Labour Party of election interference after reports surfaced that Labour activists had supported Kamala Harris. Since then, Starmer has worked to suppress internal criticism of Trump, though privately, many in his party are dismayed by Trump’s positions on Gaza and Ukraine.
One Labour MP told CNN, “Diplomacy by Twitter is not how complex geopolitical issues should be handled. The spread of misinformation under this presidency raises serious concerns about European security.”
The Chagos Controversy
Beyond Ukraine, Starmer faces another thorny issue: his controversial plan to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, Britain’s last African colony, to Mauritius.
Downing Street argues that the deal, which extends US-UK military rights at Diego Garcia for 99 years, is a strategic win. However, Trump’s approval is needed, and the deal’s terms may not sit well with him. The UK is expected to pay billions to finalize the agreement, while Mauritius’ economic ties to China raise security concerns on both sides of the Atlantic.
Former UK Defense Secretary Grant Shapps has fiercely opposed the deal, calling it “insane.” He warned, “China will use this territory to expand its influence and conduct espionage. The security of our military bases is at risk.”
Even within Labour, skepticism persists. One MP admitted, “National security is the priority. I remain open-minded, but I’m not yet convinced this deal is in our best interest.”
A Pivotal Moment
Between Ukraine, the Chagos deal, China, and his own party’s history with Trump, Starmer faces a series of difficult discussions. Unlike Macron, he is unlikely to challenge Trump openly in front of the media. However, with time running out, he can no longer rely solely on diplomacy and flattery—tough conversations are now unavoidable.
Starmer’s primary focus as prime minister has been economic growth and trade, not international diplomacy. But global crises have forced him into the role of statesman. Whether he succeeds in influencing Trump remains to be seen, but this visit will be a defining moment in Britain’s approach to a rapidly shifting world order.
As Starmer himself acknowledged on Monday, “Trump has changed the global conversation on Ukraine. Now, it’s Britain’s turn to make its case.”
