Donald Trump’s visit to London did not bring him closer to Prime Minister Keir Starmer: their positions diverged not only on Ukraine but on virtually every major issue. The one positive outcome, observers noted, was that Starmer "avoided public humiliation."
"Despite the warm tone and generous praise from the president, the disagreements—from Gaza to disputes over the merits of wind turbines—were striking. Starmer was pleased to hear Trump acknowledge that President Putin had ‘truly let him down,’ but there were no signs of greater support for Ukraine. On the contrary, Trump bluntly stated that Britain’s recognition of a Palestinian state was ‘one of our few disagreements.’ He advised Starmer to ‘bring in the military’ to end illegal migration and urged him to rely on North Sea oil and gas rather than what he called the ‘expensive joke’ of wind power. Still, by Trump’s own standards, he was restrained. He deliberately sidestepped pointed questions on free speech in Britain, despite his well-known views on the subject," the paper wrote.
The New York Times stressed that the royal welcome in London was more a gesture of flattery toward the U.S. president than an opportunity for political breakthroughs. The paper also noted that it remained unclear whether such a conspicuous display of hospitality would yield any dividends for Britain.
"Trump appeared unwilling to soften the terms of the trade deal struck with the United States. Nor did he promise new steps on the two issues of greatest concern to London: Russia’s war against Ukraine and Israel’s grinding campaign in Gaza," the NYT observed.
The Mirror, by contrast, sharply condemned the lavish reception. "Elevating a vile American bully who imposed economic sanctions on Britain and undermines the country’s security by weakening NATO—not to mention betraying Ukraine—gave unhinged Don everything he wanted and nothing in return," the paper declared.