Andy Burnham arrives at 10 Downing Street with almost zero name recognition in Washington and a problem that will define his early months in power: managing Donald Trump.
The incoming British prime minister, until recently the mayor of Greater Manchester, faces a relationship that has already soured between the current government and the White House. When Trump learned of Burnham's likely ascension, his response was telling. "I don't know, I think I see that he was, I guess, the mayor of a town," Trump said, before adding dismissively that Burnham was "extremely liberal" and probably wouldn't support drilling in the North Sea.
Burnham's obscurity to American audiences could actually work in his favor. Strategists and foreign policy experts argue his clean slate offers an opportunity to reset the fractured transatlantic relationship without the baggage of previous failed attempts to appease the president. "No one in America is going to know who he is. But that's an opportunity to start afresh," said Frank Luntz, a consultant who spends considerable time in Britain.
Yet Burnham carries significant liabilities. He has publicly called US-style politics "poisonous," warned that Trump brought "instability" to the world, and recently urged British voters to reject the "divided, dark politics" they see across the Atlantic. These words will haunt him in early negotiations with a president known for holding grudges and monitoring every media mention.
The track record offers little encouragement. Trump has treated each of his British counterparts as subordinates rather than peers, showing far greater deference to the British monarchy than to prime ministers. Keir Starmer attempted the charm offensive route, securing an "unprecedented" second state visit, but the relationship cratered over Trump's threats toward Greenland, his denigration of British troops, and his perception that Britain failed to support his Iran ambitions. "This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with" became Trump's taunt.
Foreign policy experts and seasoned diplomats are divided on how Burnham should proceed. Some advise aggressive charm and personal flattery, recognizing that Trump views diplomacy through a personal lens rather than policy substance. Others counsel the opposite: maintaining strategic distance and avoiding the obsequiousness that Trump inevitably punishes.
Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to Bill Clinton, warned bluntly that "the special relationship has been replaced by the abusive relationship." He noted that Trump has shown "very low esteem for British prime ministers," treating them with contempt while reserving reverence for royalty. This dynamic suggests Burnham should brace himself for public attacks and personal insults regardless of his approach.
The New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte offer intriguing blueprints. Both operate from ideological positions at odds with Trump yet have cultivated working relationships by projecting confidence, avoiding the "anti-Trump" posture, and identifying narrow areas of mutual interest. Mamdani, a democratic socialist, has earned Trump's respect through personal charisma and a reputation as a political winner.
One clear common ground exists: both Burnham and Trump claim to represent ordinary people left behind by mainstream political establishments. Burnham's decade-long campaign to shift power away from London to northern England mirrors Trump's populist messaging. Trump might actually respect this impulse to challenge entrenched hierarchies.
Nina Sawetz, a communications adviser who worked with Burnham's mayoral team, suggests the incoming prime minister will instinctively focus on "outcomes and interests for the UK, rather than compete on personalities." This disciplined approach could frustrate Trump's attempts to provoke public quarrels, though it may initially be misread as weakness. Trump will almost certainly test pressure points repeatedly once he identifies them.
Defence spending offers Burnham an early opening. Experts argue he could approach Washington with concrete commitments to increased military investment framed as solving mutual problems. This transactional language resonates with Trump far more than appeals to tradition or alliance loyalty.
Other strategists push harder. Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state, advised Burnham to arrive with a clear agenda of what he needs from Washington and specific concessions he can offer Trump in return. The deal-making framework is the only language Trump truly fluent in.
But warnings also abound. Some analysts note that Democratic members of Congress will provide Burnham with allies absent during Starmer's tenure, particularly if Democrats regain control of either chamber in upcoming elections. Burnham should cultivate these relationships extensively as a counterweight to Trump's volatility.
Richard Stengel, a former undersecretary of state in the Obama administration, offered the most blunt counsel: drop the "special relationship" rhetoric entirely. "I would no longer mention the special relationship. That is a dog that doesn't hunt any more," he said. Stengel also warned against red ties, which he views as signaling capitulation, and cautioned that the "kowtowing" approach that many leaders have tried inevitably backfires because Trump eventually turns on everyone.
Mark Carney, Canada's prime minister, set a contrasting example by delivering a forceful speech at Davos about threats to the international order without naming Trump directly. This stance has earned him respect from serious international observers as someone willing to draw lines while remaining professionally cordial.
The timeline remains urgent. Burnham's first call with Trump could come within days. Unlike Starmer's energetic pursuit of early pageantry at the Oval Office, Burnham may find his best strategy lies in avoiding the desperate courtship altogether. His unfamiliarity in Washington removes the burden of reputation defense and allows him to operate from principle rather than fear of losing an imagined special status.
What Burnham cannot avoid is the fundamental volatility of dealing with a president who views relationships as personal dominance contests. Trump's erratic nature, thin skin, and constant appetite for flattery suggest that any approach carries significant risk. The question facing Burnham is whether to lean into transactional problem-solving, maintain dignified distance, or attempt the high-wire act of seeming like a peer rather than a supplicant.
Author James Rodriguez: "Burnham's best move is to stop auditioning for Trump's approval and start negotiating like a leader of a sovereign nation with concrete leverage. Charm clearly doesn't work; distance might."
Comments