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," a minister warns, highlighting the precarious position the Prime Minister finds himself in. As the global landscape is reshaped by the bold actions of his ally in the White House, Starmer's domestic challenges are compounded by growing scrutiny of his foreign policy decisions. While his government's handling of international affairs has largely been viewed as competent, the increasing assertiveness of Donald Trump on the world stage—particularly in Venezuela and Greenland—is providing ammunition for Starmer's critics at home.
But here's where it gets controversial... Starmer's close relationship with Trump has long been a point of contention, especially among the left wing of the Labour Party. This unease is rooted in a historical skepticism of the "special relationship" between the UK and the US, a dynamic that has sparked criticism across generations. From Tony Blair's alignment with George W. Bush during the Iraq War to Margaret Thatcher's rapport with Ronald Reagan, such partnerships have often been met with suspicion and satire. Yet, as one Labour MP notes, "It's the unavoidable cost of doing business." By fostering loyalty and friendship with a controversial leader, the UK gains leverage in trade negotiations and secures support for critical issues like Ukraine. Royal invitations and concessions to US tech giants are part of this transactional diplomacy, but they come at a cost—both politically and morally.
So far, Starmer's strategy has yielded results, with senior figures crediting Blair-era adviser Jonathan Powell for his deft handling of foreign policy. But this is the part most people miss... According to a senior Labour MP, there's a growing risk of "being linked to the madness" of Trump's unpredictable actions. Starmer faces accusations of weakness from both sides of the political spectrum, and a looming policy dilemma: how much should the UK spend on defense in an increasingly unstable world?
Traditionally, the UK's official opposition aligns with the government on foreign policy, but this convention feels outdated in the turbulent landscape of 2026. Kemi Badenoch, emboldened by her rising influence, has taken the unusual step of challenging Starmer's foreign policy in the Commons. She criticized his delayed response to the Venezuela strike and his lack of transparency regarding the UK's troop deployment agreement with France and Ukraine. Is she onto something, or is this just political posturing? Her team believes she's successfully undermined Starmer's authority, and the Conservatives are likely to amplify this narrative, arguing that the UK isn't projecting enough strength on the global stage. But the question remains: What would Badenoch do differently?
It's unlikely she would gain closer access to Trump's inner circle than Starmer has. 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 focus on foreign policy. Lib Dem leader Ed Davey's comments on Venezuela went viral, underscoring the public's growing interest in these issues.
And this is where it gets even more contentious... As Trump's foreign policy becomes more aggressive, Starmer's close ties to him are increasingly seen as a liability. 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 Lib Dems' successful opposition to Tony Blair over Iraq, though the parallels aren't perfect. Meanwhile, the Green Party is capitalizing on anti-Trump sentiment, with a senior source stating, "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 party's traditional left, with some MPs questioning the government's silence on Trump's actions in Venezuela and its support for the Marinera seizure. Even Starmer's allies worry about his ability to manage domestic perceptions. "The responses have been the response of a diplomat's brain, not a political one," one colleague observes. "If you don't take a strong political position, you'll be attacked by both sides."
Yet, the global turmoil may deter potential leadership challenges within Labour, as any contender could appear self-serving during such a critical international moment. Foreign policy isn't the strongest suit of Labour's main adversary, Reform UK, making it easier for Labour to deflect their criticisms. However, the escalating global instability has reignited debates about defense spending. How much more taxpayer money should be allocated to defense, and has the government made the tough decisions needed to ensure national security?
Defense Secretary John Healey insists that global events demand a new era for defense, and ministers have pledged to increase spending at a rate unseen since the Cold War. But former Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Tony Radakin warned of potential budget cuts, and his successor confirmed that some capabilities have already been reduced. Awkward! This internal conflict was further complicated by the US's new security strategy, the strikes on Venezuela, and Trump's renewed ambition to acquire Greenland—even if it means using military force against a NATO ally.
After Trump's recent actions, the question of how much the UK is willing to invest in its own protection—and what sacrifices politicians are willing to make—has become more urgent. While ministers have vowed to increase defense spending, have they truly grasped the scale of the shift required, or been honest with the public about it?
In British politics, foreign policy rarely sways voters, who prioritize domestic issues. But opposition parties are eager to exploit this new front to attack Starmer. Is 2026 the year when foreign policy becomes a decisive factor in domestic politics?
What do you think? Is Starmer's alliance with Trump a strategic necessity or a dangerous liability? Should the UK increase defense spending, and if so, by how much? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
Top image credit: Getty Images
BBC InDepth (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/bbcindepth) offers 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]
