Is Keir Starmer's alliance with Donald Trump becoming his Achilles' heel?
1 hour ago
Laura Kuenssberg, Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, BBC
"Keir can't be the last gasp of the dying world order," warns a minister, capturing the essence of a growing unease within political circles. As the global landscape undergoes seismic shifts, largely orchestrated by the assertive presence of Donald Trump in the White House, Prime Minister Keir Starmer finds himself at the helm of a nation grappling with both domestic challenges and international realignments. While his government's handling of foreign affairs has largely been viewed as competent, the escalating pace of Trump's global interventions—particularly in Venezuela and Greenland—is threatening to turn one of Starmer's few successes into a liability. His opponents, growing bolder by the day, are poised to exploit this vulnerability.
But here's where it gets controversial... Starmer's close alignment with Trump has long been a point of contention, especially among the left wing of the Labour Party. This discomfort is rooted in a historical skepticism of the so-called "special relationship" between the UK and the US, a dynamic that has often been criticized as lopsided. From Tony Blair's perceived subservience to George W. Bush during the Iraq War to the satirical portrayals of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, this relationship has never been without its detractors. Yet, for Starmer, it's a calculated move: by fostering loyalty and friendship with a controversial leader, the UK stands to gain favorable trade deals and diplomatic support, such as backing for Ukraine. And this is the part most people miss... It's not just about personal rapport; it's a transactional necessity, as one Labour MP puts it, "The unavoidable cost of doing business."
So far, this strategy has yielded results, with senior government figures praising the work of foreign policy adviser Jonathan Powell. However, a senior Labour MP warns of a growing risk: "Being linked to the madness" of Trump's policies could backfire. Starmer faces accusations of weakness from both sides of the political spectrum, compounded by a looming policy dilemma: how much should the UK invest in defense in an increasingly unstable world?
Traditionally, the UK's official opposition aligns with the government on foreign policy—a stance that feels almost quaint in the turbulent year of 2026. Kemi Badenoch, an increasingly prominent figure, is challenging this norm. In a rare move, she criticized Starmer's foreign policy in the Commons this week, arguing that he was irrelevant for failing to engage directly with Trump following the Venezuela strike. She also accused him of withholding details about a deal with France and Ukraine involving UK troops. Her team believes she successfully undermined Starmer's authority, and the Conservatives are likely to amplify this narrative, questioning the UK's strength on the global stage. But the question remains: What would Badenoch do differently?
It's far from certain that Badenoch would have greater influence within Trump's inner circle than Starmer does. Could she have brokered a peace deal in Ukraine or taken more aggressive action against Russia's shadow fleet, such as the UK-supported seizure of the Marinera tanker? In reality, the opposition's role is to critique, not to act. Yet, Badenoch's attacks resonate, particularly as the Lib Dems and other opposition parties ramp up their scrutiny of Starmer's foreign policy.
The Lib Dems, nearly neck-and-neck with Labour in some polls, used both their PMQs questions this week to focus on foreign affairs—an unusual move. Lib Dem leader Ed Davey's comments on Venezuela went viral on Instagram, with nearly 10 million views, highlighting the public's interest in these issues. A senior Lib Dem source notes, "Starmer is so closely hitched to Trump that there's a growing risk it's damaging—and it works on the doors: lots of Labour voters are anti-Trump but pro-Nato." This echoes the party's successful opposition to Tony Blair over Iraq, though the parallels aren't exact. Still, Labour's discomfort is palpable, and their rivals are quick to capitalize.
The Green Party is also seizing the opportunity, criticizing Starmer for his close ties to Trump. A senior party source remarks, "He's put so many of our eggs in the Donald Trump basket. Lavishing him with a second state visit was always going to end in tears." Within Labour, there's unease among the traditional left, with some MPs questioning the government's muted response to Trump's actions in Venezuela and the UK's role in the Marinera seizure.
Even Starmer's supporters worry about how his diplomatic approach is perceived domestically. "The responses have been the response of a diplomat's brain, not a political one," says one ally. "If you don't take a strong political position too, you'll be attacked by both sides." Yet, the current international turmoil may deter potential leadership challenges, as any contender could appear self-serving during such a critical global moment.
While Trump's unpredictable actions provide ammunition for Starmer's opponents, they also underscore the value of stability within his party. Foreign policy isn't the strong suit of Labour's main adversary, Reform UK, making it easier for Labour to deflect their criticisms. However, the dramatic global events of 2026 have reignited a crucial debate: how much more should taxpayers contribute to defense in an increasingly unstable world? One insider reveals, "Defence spending is a proper wound now—it's not just the chiefs grumbling."
Starmer frequently emphasizes the turbulence of our times, arguing that the UK and Europe must allocate significantly more resources to defense. Defense Secretary John Healey recently reaffirmed this commitment, promising increases at a rate unseen since the Cold War. However, this comes with a caveat. Former Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Tony Radakin publicly questioned whether there would be enough funding to prevent cuts. While Healey dismissed this, the new Chief of the Defence Staff later confirmed that some capabilities had already been reduced—an awkward contradiction.
This debate was further complicated by the US's new security strategy, which laid bare Trump's aggressive approach. The strikes on Venezuela and the White House's renewed ambition to control Greenland—even at the expense of a NATO ally—have heightened the urgency. After Trump's recent actions, the question of how much the UK is willing to spend on its own protection, and what sacrifices politicians are prepared to make, becomes increasingly pressing.
Many argue, including opposition parties, that ministers have already pledged to increase defense spending. But have they truly grasped the scale of this shift, or been transparent with the public? That remains an open question.
A longstanding rule in British politics is that voters don't prioritize foreign policy; domestic issues dominate. As one government source notes, "People want us to handle foreign affairs competently, but it's not what they vote on—unless in genuinely exceptional circumstances." Yet, opposition parties are eager to open a new front against Starmer, raising profound questions about the government's priorities in a dangerous world.
All politics is local, as the saying goes. But could 2026 be the year that breaks the rule?
Top image credit: Getty Images
BBC InDepth (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/bbcindepth) offers the best analysis, fresh perspectives, and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. Sign up for notifications to stay updated: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6x46j8g5do
Thought-provoking question for our readers: In a world shaped by Trump's unpredictability, is Keir Starmer's alignment with the US president a strategic necessity or a political liability? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
