The “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom — resilient through revolutions and upheavals — now faces a test under President Donald Trump. The British government is attempting to preserve that bond even as tensions have grown between Washington and London.
Despite deep economic links and intensive intelligence cooperation, Trump has repeatedly criticized the UK and Prime Minister Keir Starmer, primarily over Britain’s refusal to be drawn into a US-led conflict with Iran. When Starmer initially barred US forces from using British bases, Trump sneered, “This is not Winston Churchill we are dealing with,” and later complained to The Sun that the relationship “is obviously not what it was” and that the prime minister “has not been helpful.”
Only a year earlier the tone was very different: the UK became the first country to sign a post-tariff trade deal with the US. Since then, however, Trump’s barbed threats — from talk of invading Greenland to broad tariff measures affecting allies, criticism of what he calls a “weak” Europe, and the fallout from the Iran war — have frayed ties. For Trump the refusal by Britain to back US and Israeli actions may have felt like a personal betrayal, especially after London secured an early trade agreement.
The British government has long employed the monarchy as a soft-power diplomatic tool. State visits are emblematic rather than executive: as a constitutional monarch, King Charles III cannot negotiate treaties or set policy. Still, royal pageantry carries symbolic weight. In September 2025 Trump and the first lady received an unprecedented second state visit to the UK, complete with pomp and ceremony. At the state banquet, Trump lauded the “bond of kinship and identity” between the nations as “priceless and eternal … irreplaceable and unbreakable.”
Given Trump’s mercurial positions, why send the king again? Nigel Fletcher, a political historian at King’s College London, says the British government likely views it as worth attempting to win goodwill, even briefly, rather than doing nothing. Declining the invitation — probably extended before the Iran conflict — would likely have provoked a harsh reaction from Trump, and officials want to avoid unnecessary provocation.
Public opinion in the UK, however, is less welcoming. Polling in March showed nearly half of Britons opposed the visit, while just a third supported it; more than 80% view Trump negatively in a recent survey. Critics question the wisdom of deploying the monarch to court a president known for unpredictability. Graham Smith of the anti-monarchy group Republic contends the effort is pointless: Trump is not inclined toward diplomacy, and Charles cannot influence him. “We are just wasting our time … Trump has advertised the impotence of having a monarch,” Smith said.
The royal visit will include garden parties, state dinners and — notably — an address to Congress, only the second by a British monarch since Queen Elizabeth II spoke in 1991. The palace is expected to emphasize the enduring friendship and shared culture between the nations. Whether that rhetoric will mend frayed ties is uncertain.
The trip also risks controversy. Prince Andrew’s past association with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein remains a sensitive issue. Survivors have sought meetings with the king; the palace has declined, citing active police inquiries, a decision that drew disappointment from US Congressman Ro Khanna. Women’s rights groups have indicated plans to protest, raising the possibility the scandal could eclipse the diplomatic objectives.
Trump’s unpredictability is another wildcard. He has previously unsettled foreign leaders in the Oval Office — as seen in an awkward meeting with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy — but he has generally spoken warmly of King Charles, calling him “a fantastic man” and suggesting the visit could help repair relations. Charles, an outspoken environmentalist, used the earlier state banquet to highlight nature conservation, stopping short of directly criticizing the president’s climate stance.
Fletcher suggests Trump responds well to flattery and has developed a personal rapport with the king, making the monarch one of the few available faces of continuity in a strained relationship. Given that, the British government may have judged the potential embarrassment of a fraught visit an acceptable risk to preserve the “special relationship.”
Edited by: J. Wingard