In 1950, Dean Acheson, the Anglophile Cold Warrior who was once mistaken for Anthony Eden, exploded at his State Department officials for writing the words “special relationship” in an official document. The problem, Acheson fumed, was that, yes, the UK and US might have a “unique” relationship, but “unique did not mean affectionate”. Even worse, if that paper had leaked, then he could have faced accusations of being the “tool of a foreign power”. Acheson had all existing copies burned and the culprits dressed down for their sentimentality.
He would have no such worries today, for it is Britain’s leaders who are anxious to avoid the perception that they are under the thumb of Washington. Unless Andy Burnham goes to the country earlier than he has said he would, then it falls to him to steer Britain through the final years of this Trumpian age. It is an aspect of his new job that Burnham would rather not do – he prefers to talk about devolution than diplomacy – but it is one that each of Trump’s three previous prime ministers came to see as vital but, ultimately, insurmountable. Unwanted hand-holding, obsequious flattery and, finally, the royal touch all failed to win over the president.
The task will be just as tough for Burnham. He will have to reconcile competing factions: MPs contemptuous of Trump; a diplomatic and military establishment keen to secure the relationship; and US officials sniping each time British domestic policy drifts to the left. Meanwhile, Nigel Farage, who met with JD Vance in Washington DC over the 4 July weekend, is back in the picture after Starmer’s inroads with the president briefly overshadowed his relationship with the White House.
Trump has said that he knows little about Burnham, except that he is “very liberal”. That needn’t sound the death knell for the relationship. The democratic socialist mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, whose team Burnham is close to, has finessed his relationship with the president by leaning on Trump’s affection for the city and keeping criticism of the White House to a minimum. Someone close to Burnham reminded me that he instinctively does not see people across the aisle – or the pond – as enemies. Trump will certainly put that to the test.
British diplomats and senior Labour figures think that Burnham will inevitably have to spend more time on the phone to Washington in the middle of the night than he might like. Some also think that the more covert relationships between Britain and America’s intelligence services, military chiefs and diplomats will ease any tensions that emerge between the two public figures. But that is complacent given how much American politics has changed over the past decade. America First is not just a slogan concocted in a PR firm’s boardroom, but an ideology that is now firmly held by people with real power. As Acheson knew, warm relations between the two nations is the exception, not the rule.
The problem is not just the president’s fickleness – even if one figure close to the White House did recommend that Burnham dangle the prospect of holding the Open Championship at Trump’s Scottish course, a bauble Starmer put to good use. Golf might keep the president sweet for a few days, but the rest of the administration – the leaders of the future – cannot be so easily bought off. A senior administration official told me that Burnham must “understand how terrible the UK’s brand is”. They warned that Britain is viewed on large parts of the right and left “as a failed state – poorer than Mississippi”. In practice, this means that unlike during the Blair era, US officials view “presumptions of equality – which is what the special relationship is – as insulting”.
It’s always a mistake to read the criticism coming out of Washington as contempt for Britain per se. There are many in Maga who see themselves as more Anglophile than Labour – a party that they hold responsible for the UK’s precipitous decline. From their perspective, they are disappointed only because Britain has been so poorly governed.
Warren Stephens, the terse and tough US ambassador to the UK, has said that a recent meeting he had with Ed Miliband, in which they discussed the government’s reluctance to drill in the North Sea, “didn’t really go all that well”. He followed that up with an article in the Times on Burnham’s accession day (20 July) urging him to deliver higher defence spending. Remember, also, that at the end of last year MI6 stopped sharing intelligence with the Americans about Caribbean operations amid fears that the US would keep striking vessels near Venezuela. As long as Farage is out of No 10, Britain and America are diverging.
We know that two policies in particular would ingratiate Burnham to the president: drilling in the North Sea and closing the border. I would add a third which animates many in the administration: an end to attacks on free speech, whether regulating American social media companies or arresting those who post their most unpleasant thoughts. But, of course, if Burnham were to take his policies from Truth Social, even those with merit, then he would be accused of being the “tool of a foreign power” – and Burnham has less room for such an accusation than Acheson ever did.
[Further reading: Could Iran be America’s next Vietnam?]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 22 Jul 2026 issue of the New Statesman, The Take Over
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentHeadline trivialises the article for me
Trump is driven less by policy than by an amalgam of vanity, greed, and nostalgia. Part of the vanity ingredient is a fear of being a loser or being associated with losers. Trump’s partial change of attitude regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict stems from the perception that Zelenskyy is looking increasingly like a winner at the expense of Putin.
It’s difficult making sense of what is going on under that orange exterior, but Trump’s perception of Andy Burnham is probably closer to winner than loser – given the thumping Makerfield victory, the quick accession to Number 10, and the Greater Manchester by-election results.
Of course the slightest thing can set Trump off. But the relative lack of harangues and insults directed at Burnham is a comparatively good sign at this point.