Will the “Sky Fall” on UK-US Special Relationship?

By: Monish Tourangbam

Published on: March 11 2025

President Donald Trump seemed smitten by the British Prime Minister’s accent, and was visibly pleased by the invitation to visit London that Prime Minister Keir Starmer carried from King Charles. “What a beautiful accent, I would’ve been president 20 years ago if I had that accent,” President Trump said, to laughs and applause from the invited press. The Trump-Starmer meeting came out relatively good on optics and vibes compared to the frosty developments in America’s ties with the European Union (EU), nosediving relations with neighbors and closest trading partners like Canada and Mexico plus the verbal spat with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine. However, like all major stakeholders of the international system shaken and stirred by Trump’s tariff salvos, deals to end the Ukraine war and withdrawals from major multilateral platforms of global governance, the UK-US special relationship, that has withstood major shifts in the post-World War-II world order, appears under severe stress and strain.

Ukraine and NATO

The most glaring divergence, despite diplomatic niceties to avoid any showdown, has been over the peace negotiations to end the Ukraine war and America’s role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). While praising Trump for making a “historic peace agreement” possible, Starmer cautioned against a “peace that rewards the aggressor” hinting at Trump’s position to call out Ukraine’s behavior, but reluctance to call Russia the “aggressor”. While Britain and France are leading the efforts for European-led security guarantees for peace in Ukraine, they have been trying to get the US military on board. Differences exist over the means to bring peace in Europe, with Trump insisting that Ukraine agreeing to the minerals deal, would in itself, bring security guarantees.

On the other hand, PM Starmer questioned Russian President Vladimir Putin’s willingness to keep his word on the peace deal. Just days after the verbal spat between President Trump and President Zelenskyy, the British PM announced a loan of 2.2 billion British pounds ($2.8 billion) to support Ukraine, funded through the freezing of Russian assets. He also highlighted a deal that would allow Ukraine to use 1.6 billion pounds ($2 billion) in export finance to buy missiles made in Northern Ireland. This stands in contrast to Trump’s suspending military aid to Ukraine, and also mulling over ending intelligence sharing with Ukraine ahead of the talks in Riyadh.

On March 2, the British PM had invited more than a dozen European and EU leaders to a summit in London to “drive forward” action on Ukraine and security. Starmer, while insisting that Ukraine must be part of any negotiations to end the war with Russia, also emphasised “the need for Europe to play its part on defence and step up for the good of the collective security.” EU leaders also met on March 6, for an emergency meeting where they reportedly “agreed to significantly boost defence spending to ensure Europe’s security and voiced near-unanimous support for Ukraine” in response to the Trump Administration upending decades old transatlantic terms of engagement and alliance. On February 17, PM Starmer, ahead of another emergency meeting with European leaders in Paris, said that the UK was prepared to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by “putting our own troops on the ground if necessary.” However, high level defence and security talks between the US and UK have continued, over the potential role that the United States could still play in providing security guarantees, particularly through surveillance and air cover, in case the UK were to step in with peacekeepers in Ukraine. On March 5, UK Defence Secretary John Healey visited Washington for talks with his US counterpart Pete Hegseth. Amidst all these, Trump reportedly called the UK plan for “coalition of the willing” as weak, for relying on the US for security cover. 

Trade, Tariffs and Technology

While the UK is yet to be on the direct firing line of Trump’s tariff salvos, the specifics of the new trade deal that is to be negotiated between the US and UK that could avoid a tariff war, are not very clear yet. The British Prime Minister, reportedly, said that new technology will be at the core of the new trade agreement. Both the US and UK, after the Paris Artificial Intelligence (AI) summit, refused to sign the declaration, reflecting a new kind of alignment between the US and UK, with the later showing a stronger bond with the US, and not with former EU partners on matter of technology regulation and innovation. There is a growing schism over “regulation” or “over-regulation” on new technologies, and how they might impact “the opportunities” that new technologies bring.

The US Vice President, J D Vance, who represented the voice of transatlantic rifts over technology, security and values in the Paris AI summit and the Munich Security Conference, was also present during the Trump-Starmer meeting. Doubling down on his speeches in Europe, Vance told the British PM, “We do have of course a special relationship with our friends in the UK and also our European allies, but we also know there have been infringements on free speech that affect not just the British - what the British do in their own country is up to them - but also affect American technology companies and by extension, American citizens.” PM Starmer retorted back, “we’ve had free speech for a very long time, it will last a long time, and we are very proud of that.” “No. I mean, I certainly we wouldn't want to reach across the US and we don't and that's absolutely right. In relation to free speech in the UK. I'm very proud of our history there,” the British Prime Minister said.

 Climate Change and Green Transition

The speed at which the US President has withdrawn from major climate change pacts, agreements and arrangements at the bilateral and multilateral levels, will be of consequence in the days to come over financing and green technology sharing. Rachel Kyte, UK Special Representative on Climate, speaking during an event in Pretoria, said, “You plan for the worst and hope for the best.” “We have to plan for a world where the US is not transfusing funds into the green transition,” UK’s climate envoy Kyte said. The UK Envoy also commented that the negative impact of the US withdrawal from multilateral climate initiatives should not be overestimated as the US, even without Trump, had been failing in its pledges to deliver, due to unpopularity of such fund transfers in the US Congress.

Reports also point to developed European nations including the UK, failing in their own commitments to fund green transition initiatives, in the developing world. The growing pressure from the Trump administration, pushing for increase in their defense share to NATO to reach 5 per cent of their GDP might affect these pledges more, even as UK promised increased defense spending to 2.5 per cent.

Israel-Hamas War and Gaza

Apart from the Ukraine peace talks, the Trump administration has been attracting attention for some outlandish comments in the midst of a fragile ceasefire deal and hostage swapping between Israel and Hamas. Trump had commented on his intention to “take over” Gaza, and permanently displacing the Palestinians, to build a riviera there. Compared to other world leaders who came calling Trump early on his second term, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, evidently, came out the strongest in terms of wholesale support from Trump. While the western world would broadly agree on supporting the existence of Israel, there are differences over Israel’s military retaliation, the plight of Palestinians in Gaza and the flow of international aid there. PM Starmer came out strongly supporting a two-state solution, that would acknowledge plus guarantee Palestinian sovereignty.

Shaken and Stirred

Will these cracks in the UK-US special relationship open wounds that will stay on and inflict the partnership, way beyond the four years of Trump’s presidency? Despite the UK being outside of the EU framework, London has equal, if not more, stakes in the future of the NATO as a collective defense mechanism, even as European powers, responding to Trump’s growing bromance with President Putin, vow to take a stronger stand towards self-reliance on European defense and security. The security guarantees and cover that the US military might and battle-hardened armed forces provide to NATO is undeniable, but can the decades-old organization that survived the end of the Cold War survive the four years of Trump’s maverick and hyper-transactional presidency? Well, to repeat a cliché, only time will tell.

*The Author is Director at the Kalinga Institute of Indo-Pacific Studies (KIIPS) and an Associate Editor at India Quarterly.

Disclaimer: The Views in the Article are of the Author