Good morning. In the early hours of Tuesday, a transatlantic flight carrying UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham, a handful of senior British ministers, his wife Marie France, and an excited contingent of political journalists touched down at a New York airport. The journey marked one of Burnham’s most high-profile international outings since taking office: a crucial, face-to-face meeting with United States President Donald Trump against the bustling backdrop of the United Nations General Assembly.
Considering the historical friction between the two figures—Trump once famously dismissed Burnham as merely the mayor of "a town," while Burnham countered that the American leader would not be welcome in Manchester—the initial encounter on Tuesday afternoon went remarkably well. Observers at the UN general assembly, an annual festival of global hobnobbing and high-stakes dealmaking for international leaders, noted a surprisingly relaxed atmosphere. Save for a few characteristic hiccups—such as Trump describing Burnham as a "natural businessperson," news that will likely come as a surprise to the British prime minister—the talks proceeded smoothly. Meanwhile, Marie France Burnham was entertained at a designated spouses’ lunch alongside Melania Trump, leaving the UK prime minister to end his day with a profound sense of relief.
Yet, despite the warm words and cordial handshakes exchanged in Manhattan, Burnham and his Foreign Secretary, Ed Miliband, still face deeply complex and thorny questions regarding how Downing Street will navigate its relationship with Washington. Faced with a resurgent global far-right movement that has been visibly emboldened by the current US administration, political analysts are closely watching how Burnham approaches the country that was, until recently, the primary ally Britain would call upon in any international diplomatic crisis. Pippa Crerar, the Guardian’s political editor who traveled with the prime minister, has helped unpack these shifting geopolitical dynamics.
In Depth: Navigating a Fractured Global Order
A non-exhaustive review of Donald Trump’s recent foreign policy achievements offers a stark reminder of how swiftly his administration has dismantled what is traditionally described as the "rules-based international order." Since returning to office in 2025, Trump has systematically installed loyalist figures across key governmental positions, repeatedly flirted with the concept of withdrawing the United States from NATO, abolished USAID, severely gutted the US state department, and threatened to acquire Greenland "by any means necessary." Furthermore, his administration engineered the capture of the Venezuelan president and recast American foreign policy through the lens of a brutal "America First" doctrine.
The national security strategy published by the Trump administration in December 2025 was described by one former Pentagon official as an explicit "manifesto for the global far right." The document declared that Europe faces the "stark prospect of civilizational erasure"—explicitly echoing the far-right conspiracy theory of the "Great Replacement"—and stated that Washington would actively encourage the promotion of "patriotic European parties."
Despite these radical departures from traditional Western diplomacy, traditional allies have struggled to calibrate their responses to the second Trump presidency. Labour’s previous leadership under Keir Starmer faced substantial criticism from within his own party and among observers for adopting an overly obsequious tone toward the White House. Starmer’s deference was publicly visible when he hosted a royal state visit that featured a dinner-party seating arrangement next to the Princess of Wales, and when he struck a controversial trade agreement that compelled the NHS to significantly increase spending on US-branded pharmaceutical products. That deal, structured to protect British pharmaceutical exports from American tariffs, could ultimately cost the National Health Service as much as £44.7bn by 2030, as previously reported by Aditya Chakrabortty.
Starmer’s diplomatic posture gradually grew more assertive only after it became evident that placating the White House offered no guaranteed protection. In the latter stages of his tenure, Starmer refused to authorize the use of UK military bases for initial American strikes against Iran. Nevertheless, insiders within Whitehall frequently argued that his administration remained overly flattering and fawning in its diplomatic engagements.
What Has Changed?
On the surface, very little has shifted in terms of Trump’s bombastic style. Within hours of arriving in New York for the UN assembly, the US president managed to alienate large segments of the international community. He publicly rebuked a journalist from CNN—one of several major networks currently banned from the White House press corps—telling them they should not be there to cover him. He also openly contemplated the annihilation of Iran, leveled sharp criticisms against Cuba, and attacked the United Nations as an institution "imposing a radical left-wing agenda."
Burnham, for his part, maintained a diplomatic tone broadly comparable to that of his predecessor. He shook hands with Trump, brushed past past insults about Manchester, offered the expected rhetorical affirmations of the special relationship, and appeared to nod along as Trump vociferously condemned the contentious Chagos Island agreement. That proposed treaty, initiated under Starmer’s government, would transfer sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius while ensuring the UK retains operational control of the vital Diego Garcia military base. Despite Trump’s vocal opposition, Downing Street sources have indicated that the government intends to stick to the arrangement.
Even so, Burnham has publicly signaled a desire to carve out a distinct approach to transatlantic relations. In June, he asserted that London would not simply "go along with anything they say." The clearest indication of this more independent stance came earlier this month when Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband implemented sweeping restrictions on trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. When a journalist explicitly asked Trump during Tuesday’s meeting what he thought of Britain’s controversial sanctions, the US president notably declined to take the bait, choosing instead to defer entirely to Burnham.
This unusual display of diplomatic reticence from Washington was viewed by insiders as a vindication of careful groundwork laid by Miliband and Foreign Office diplomats over the summer, during which they successfully cobbled together a 12-nation coalition to support the policy. The episode may provide the British government with renewed confidence that making principled, independent stands is possible without triggering severe diplomatic retaliation.
Identifying the Flashpoints
Despite the outward cordiality in Manhattan, diplomats and political commentators agree that serious friction points lie ahead. Chief among them is the escalating crisis involving Iran. Burnham informed traveling journalists on his flight to New York that he intended to pressure Trump to de-escalate regional tensions—though Trump’s public assertion that he would somehow negotiate a comprehensive deal with Tehran immediately after the US midterm elections was widely viewed as unrealistic.
Britain maintains deep-seated diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia, and Burnham recently confirmed that the UK would provide logistical support to refuel Saudi fighter jets tasked with defending local energy infrastructure against Houthi rebel attacks. Through this decision, the prime minister is treading a narrow line between assisting a crucial regional partner and becoming entangled in a wider, protracted Middle Eastern conflict.
Furthermore, during his address to the UN General Assembly, Burnham announced the launch of a new international center aimed at establishing global regulatory standards for artificial intelligence. It remains an open question whether the UK will match European nations such as Norway and Finland by implementing strict legislation to block the deployment of advanced AI models that have not undergone rigorous safety testing—a policy path previously explored by ministers under Starmer. In any case, Burnham’s focus on AI governance places him at direct loggerheads with Trump, who recently dismissed regulatory efforts as a "globalist scheme" and insisted that his administration would henceforth refer to artificial intelligence as "SI" for Super Intelligence.
The Path Forward for British Foreign Policy
As the Trump administration continues to erode traditional multilateral alliances like NATO and the G7, temporary and alternative coalitions are rising to fill the diplomatic void. These include the grouping of nations that Miliband successfully rallied to support his West Bank sanctions. In a speech delivered in Davos earlier this year, Canadian political figure Mark Carney spoke pointedly about a profound "rupture in the world order," urging the world’s democratic "middle powers" to forge new alliances anchored in shared values.
Pippa Crerar notes that Burnham has no intention of pursuing an all-out diplomatic rupture with the United States, recognizing that Washington remains the UK’s indispensable economic and security partner. However, in an international landscape increasingly defined by competing spheres of influence involving the US, China, and the European Union, London is inevitably forced to make deliberate choices about where its geographic and ethical allegiances lie.
The revival of a foreign policy featuring an explicit "ethical dimension"—reminiscent of the principles once championed by former Labour Foreign Secretary Robin Cook—has frequently been dismissed by realpolitik pragmatists. Yet, in an era marked by a tense ideological struggle between liberal democracies and an authoritarian global far right, projecting a viable alternative to the belligerence of the Trump administration has arguably never been more critical. Miliband’s decisive sanctions announcement represents an encouraging opening salvo, though the true limits of Burnham’s willingness to challenge Washington remain to be tested.
