The long-standing “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom — forged through wars, alliances and deep institutional ties — is under fresh strain during the Trump presidency. London has been trying to steady that bond even as disputes with Washington have multiplied.
Relations cooled after Prime Minister Keir Starmer refused to allow US forces to use British bases for operations tied to the Iran conflict. Mr. Trump repeatedly attacked the UK and its leadership, complaining that the relationship was not what it once was and openly deriding Britain’s stance. Those tensions came on the heels of a period of rapprochement: barely a year earlier the UK had become the first country to sign a post-tariff trade deal with the US.
Observers say a mix of Mr. Trump’s transactional foreign policy and headline-grabbing moves — from talk of seizing territory like Greenland to threats of tariffs on allies and blunt criticisms of a “weak” Europe — has frayed goodwill. For some in Washington the British refusal to support US and Israeli actions may have felt like a personal rebuke after London secured an early trade agreement.
Against that backdrop the government in Westminster turned again to the monarchy’s diplomatic toolkit. While King Charles III, as a constitutional monarch, has no executive power to negotiate policy or treaties, state visits and royal ceremony carry symbolic weight. In September 2025 the king and the queen consort hosted a rare, second state visit for President Trump and the first lady, complete with formal pageantry and a state banquet where Mr. Trump praised the historic ties between the two nations.
Why risk staging another royal welcome for a mercurial leader? Nigel Fletcher, a political historian at King’s College London, argues that ministers likely judged it better to attempt to generate some goodwill — even temporarily — than to provoke a harsh response by declining. The invitation, he notes, was probably extended before the Iran crisis, and cancelling it could have intensified tensions.
But public sentiment at home was cool. Polling in March found nearly half of Britons opposed the visit, with only about a third in favour; more than four in five respondents held an unfavourable view of Mr. Trump in a separate survey. Critics questioned the wisdom of deploying the monarch to charm a president known for unpredictability. Graham Smith of the anti-monarchy group Republic called the exercise pointless, arguing the king cannot meaningfully influence Mr. Trump and that the pageantry risks appearing impotent.
The royal programme included garden parties, a state dinner and a rare address by a British monarch to the US Congress — only the second such speech since Queen Elizabeth II spoke there in 1991. Buckingham Palace planned to underline shared history, culture and common interests, with aides hoping symbolic gestures might ease some diplomatic friction. Whether ceremonial friendship can translate into policy shifts remained unclear.
The visit also carried potential flashpoints. Prince Andrew’s association with the late Jeffrey Epstein continues to cast a shadow; survivors sought meetings with the king that the palace declined, citing ongoing police inquiries — a refusal that drew criticism from US Congressman Ro Khanna. Women’s rights organisations signalled protests, raising the possibility that domestic scandal and demonstrations could overwhelm diplomatic messaging.
Mr. Trump’s unpredictability was cited as the final uncertain element. Though he has unsettled other world leaders in private meetings, he has spoken warmly of King Charles in public and has said the visit might help mend ties. Charles, who used his state banquet remarks to press conservation themes, steered clear of direct policy criticism.
Fletcher suggests Mr. Trump responds to flattery and that a cordial personal rapport with the monarch gives London one of the few steady faces available in a fraught relationship. For the British government, the potential embarrassment of a rocky visit may have been an acceptable risk in pursuit of preserving the historic partnership.