Since Olivia Rodrigo ("We're just friends/but I stumbled and fell into his bed") and Robert Smith of The Cure ("I wish I was old/I wish I was dead") shared the stage at the Glastonbury festival on June 29, the British Isles had not seen a stranger couple in front of the television cameras than the one formed by the country's Prime Minister, the Labour leader Keir Starmer, and the President of the United States, the Republican Donald Trump, in their 1-hour and 10-minute press conference last Monday.
It was supposed to be a brief appearance, following the first part of the 'summit' between the two that focused on political and strategic issues, especially on three fronts: Gaza, Ukraine, and British exports' access to the U.S. market. Before the meeting, Trump and Starmer had already held a press conference - which, once again, lasted much longer than expected due to the former's loquaciousness - to address these topics, during which the American, as expected, did most of the talking, although his voice was drowned out at the beginning by the sound of a Scottish bagpipe welcoming him to the land from which his mother left at 18 years old bound for the United States.
That brief encounter with the media was the prelude to the subsequent show in which Trump touched on topics such as the famine in Gaza, interest rates in the United States, and his relationship with the leader of the high society prostitution network in the U.S. and the U.K. Jeffrey Epstein. By his side, Starmer maintained a posture that the conservative - and Trumpist - British newspaper Daily Telegraph defined as that of "someone walking down the street avoiding looking at another passerby who is talking to himself." This description applies to many foreign leaders who meet with Trump. But in Starmer's case, there is a substantial difference: the British Prime Minister has seemingly established a stable relationship with Trump that is also favorable to his country's interests. Perhaps it is a matter of national identity. Rodrigo was born in Murrieta, California, and Smith in Crawley, West Sussex, and they seem to get along. Starmer is from London, and Trump from New York, and the same seems to apply to them. It seems that clichés are true after all.
Starmer has achieved the best (or least bad) trade deal (an elegant way of referring to the surrender to the U.S.) that any country or bloc of countries has achieved with Trump. He appears to have played a role in convincing Trump that the situation in Gaza is unsustainable, and apparently, he was able to persuade him to accept without much fuss the British decision to recognize the Palestinian State in September. His influence in getting the U.S. to resume military aid to Ukraine seems beyond doubt. And on top of that, Trump seems to like him.
How he has achieved this is one of the greatest mysteries of political science in 2025, and perhaps the explanation should be sought in other disciplines of increasing popularity such as tarot or astrology. Starmer has the expressiveness of a stake. In the purest British tradition, he does not talk about his private life. Those who know him well claim that he is, more than cold, icy. His charisma is close to zero, as is his communication skills. He does not see politics as a popularity contest. Starmer is a technocrat, a globalist, a pragmatist, and a center-left man. Trump, a populist, a nationalist, a person with no ideology other than himself, and a conservative to the extent that he has a barn of votes on that side of the political spectrum. In principle, they could not be more different, personally and politically.
What is the key to this miracle? It is impossible to know. But there are at least a series of cards that Starmer has played well, for now. One is that, although he has tried to adapt to Trump in everything, he has not changed his attitude to one of absolute 'flattery'. Perhaps it is the stiff character of the Prime Minister that has prevented him from falling into a certain sycophantic friendship like the one French President Emmanuel Macron forged with Trump, culminating in his State Visit to Washington in 2018, after which the American mocked everything his guest had asked for and broke the nuclear treaty withIran, thus opening the doors to war between Israel, the U.S., and that country in June of last year. At least publicly, Starmer has shown friendship, but without ceasing to be who he is. And that seems to have worked with Trump.
Equally important could be the fact that, with Starmer, the United Kingdom has set very limited goals, which it has followed with discipline. It has not criticized the destruction of U.S. environmental or scientific research policies, and in general has remained silent on many of Trump's most controversial measures. Even in some areas, London has mirrored Washington, by increasing its defense spending at the expense of development aid. The fact that the Prime Minister, perhaps precisely due to his lack of expressiveness, does not seem to do this out of conviction (as might be the case with the Conservatives or the ultra and Trumpist Reform Party) or out of ego (as many saw Tony Blair's support for the invasion of Iraq) gives him a certain credibility. Starmer does not seem to be pleased. So when he is with Trump with the face of someone getting seasick on a boat (the quote is from Green Hills of Africa by Hemingway), one might think that deep down he knows he is doing it for reasons of state, not because he likes it.
Additionally, Starmer - and the UK - have an excellent team, led by two invaluable top guns: Carlos III of England and Peter Mandelson.
The role of the King - and, in general, of the Monarchy - seems to have been crucial in building bridges between the two countries. Americans are fascinated by European Royal Houses, although for them, there are two classes in this group: the British and the others. The fact that in February the King sent, through Starmer, a personal letter to Trump inviting him for his second State Visit was an ego boost for the always self-loving American president.
Trump thus becomes the first person in history to make two State Visits to the UK, although it is not childish to wonder how London will maintain that level of flattery in the at least three years he has left in the White House. Other possible displays of flattery, such as a joint speech to Parliament, would provoke a Labour rebellion that would likely end with Starmer's ousting from power.