Keir Starmer’s Trump act is politically damaging but necessary

Good morning. Keir Starmer’s biggest and most important job is navigating Donald Trump’s second term. But that involves irritating many British voters. Some thoughts on that below.

Everything is fine, actually

Does Starmer really believe he won’t have to choose between Trump’s US and the EU — something he has claimed repeatedly, this time in an interview with the New York Times? The answer is “obviously not”. One sign of that, as Henry Foy and Ben Hall revealed, is the UK is one of a number of European powers planning a future for Nato and Europe’s defence without the US in a leading role.

But the stark reality is that when Starmer talks about the importance of a “US backstop” to help defend Ukraine, he is not kidding around. Even when France and Britain have acted without the US in recent years, such as in their Libya intervention, they used American air bases. Similarly, they would need to rely on US air bases for any immediate “reassurance force” to safeguard a ceasefire.

There are large areas of modern military knowhow for which the UK and other European powers have outsourced their knowledge and capability to the US, either by not spending money or by buying American. That can’t be fixed overnight.

To take a frequent reader question: no, it’s not true that the UK cannot use its nuclear deterrent without the US’s approval. But it is true that the UK’s existing nuclear deterrent is a “use it or lose it” one which, once it surfaces, is either getting fired or turned to scrap. It’s not well-suited to defending our allies without the US’s involvement or to deterring the use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia. Fixing that is a soluble problem, but requires money and time.

That’s why Starmer’s “everything is fine, actually” routine matters. It’s also why the government’s attempts to avoid getting caught directly in a trade war matter. Because in different ways they buy time and money to transition to a world in which the UK and Europe can defend themselves. It’s to create as much ambiguity as possible about what would happen if there were to be an attack on another European nation after a ceasefire.

The political problem of course is that British voters hate it. Trump is really unpopular in the UK. Ukraine is incredibly popular; Canada is very popular. And British ministers doing an “actually, it’s fine! What are you talking about?” routine is going to damage the government’s standing. It all adds up to a feeling — one that regularly comes up in focus groups — that the world is in the grip of constant chaos and the UK can’t protect itself or stop that chaos. (That feeling, of course, is partly rooted in reality.) Meanwhile, per Ipsos, defence is now the third-most important priority for UK voters, the highest it has been since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine.

At the moment, Starmer and the government’s ratings are benefiting from this. But there’s a risk that ministers start to sound incompetent and a little deluded. Because the necessary act of trying to maintain ambiguity about Trump and Nato makes it sound as if the UK is governed by people who simply don’t watch very much news.

Almost everyone in government knows this is a risk, and almost everyone in the opposition spots it as an opportunity. Robert Jenrick and James Cleverly see that by the time the Conservatives can return to power in 2029, managing Trump will not be their problem. That means they can criticise Trump in far plainer language than Labour. Ed Davey, Liberal Democrat leader, knows it too and made it a theme of his speech to his party’s spring conference.

Labour’s great relief, for the moment, is that the Conservatives are led by a politician who hasn’t spotted this opportunity and keeps saying mad things about foreign policy, such as “ideally” the UK shouldn’t have troops in Ukraine. (You know who also shouldn’t “ideally” have troops in Ukraine, Kemi? Russia!)

But sooner or later — my bet is summer 2026 — the Conservatives are going to have a leader who recognises this golden opportunity to hit the government where it hurts, who will deepen the political cost of Labour’s approach.

Now, ultimately, navigating the UK safely through the second Trump era and into a new world where it can defend itself and its European interests is the most important thing this government will do. It should — and rightly — be willing to court domestic unpopularity at home. But one unnecessary challenge Labour has created for itself is its promises on tax. They both limit how quickly it can move to adjust to the new reality and further irritate the voters who are most upset when Starmer claims he “likes and respects” Trump.

Now try this

I saw Black Bag at the weekend and had a terrific time. It’s a very enjoyable one-and-done thriller. Jonathan Romney’s review is here.

And the entrance to the spy headquarters is actually the FT’s London offices, which I don’t think my partner, let alone anyone else in the screening, found anywhere near as exciting as I did. But oh well.

Speaking of the FT offices, I will be doing an event at them on May 1 for students and recent graduates. It will cover reflections on British politics, how to turn your interests into a career, and we will leave plenty of time for questions at the end. Do sign up here.

Top stories today

• Stumble at a straw poll | New poll data lays bare the challenges facing Keir Starmer over spending choices. The majority of Labour voters think welfare expenditure is more important than defence, and many Britons think he can reduce taxes and debt while boosting public spending.

• Risky business | The FCA, the UK’s financial watchdog, will encourage retail investors to onboard more risk with their savings by increasing trust in markets and clamping down on fraud.

• ‘National priority’ | Could plans to double the size of Cambridge and make it an innovation hub be a model for kick-starting the UK economy? Peter Foster investigates.