A couple of months after Sir Keir Starmer was elected I asked a Labour minister what the PM’s foreign policy priorities would be.
‘It’s not about specifics,’ he answered. ‘It’s more about a vision.
‘Inside No 10 they talk about ‘The Bridge’. That’s what he wants to be. The bridge between Europe and the United States. Especially if Trump wins.’
Today, 2026 is less than a week old. But it’s already clear this will be the year that vision – and the bridge – collapse.
Over the past couple of days, we have all seen the images of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro being led onto the warship USS Iwo Jima, handcuffed and blindfolded. But over the same period it seems Britain’s Prime Minister has been similarly bound and gagged.
Asked whether he supported the audacious – some would say reckless and illegal – American operation, Starmer has been struck dumb.
‘The US will have to justify the action it has taken,’ he said today, with the clarity and conviction that have come to define his premiership.
Pressed again on whether the US had acted within international law, the self-styled champion of the rules-based global order could only mutter evasively: ‘There was an illegitimate president who has now been removed, and I don’t think anybody is really shedding any tears about that,’ before meekly calling for ‘a peaceful transition to democracy as soon as possible’.
What passed for British foreign policy has rapidly turned to dust, argues our columnist
Until recently there was a perception that foreign affairs represented one area where Starmer displayed a degree of competence and aptitude.
Given the clown-show characterising just about every other aspect of his governance, that was admittedly a low bar. But for a fleeting moment it seemed our new Prime Minister would at least be able to step across the world stage without falling flat on his face.
Like every other positive preconception aligned with Starmer, it has rapidly turned to dust. Along with what passed for British foreign policy.
Look across the global arena. Ukraine. Gaza. Israel and Iran. The Venezuela invasion. Then look again for the steadying hand of the United Kingdom. You will look in vain.
We are now approaching a year from the date when Starmer first announced ‘boots on the ground’ as a part of a ‘coalition of the willing’ to protect the Ukranians. Twelve months on, the only thing to have landed on Ukranian soil are Putin’s missiles.
On Gaza, Starmer’s ministers stepped in and hijacked the Government’s stance, bouncing him towards a premature recognition of a Palestinian state because they could no longer stomach his vacillation.
When Israel and the US – supposedly two of our closest allies – opted to strike Iran’s nuclear programme, Starmer was as blindsided as the mullahs in Tehran.
For a while, the Prime Minister was able to trade off successfully managing the optics of his relationship with Trump. The fact that his first visit to the White House passed without the humiliating brow-beating delivered to other visitors was hailed a diplomatic triumph.
Join the debate
Has Keir Starmer failed to define a clear foreign policy?
‘To President Trump, the British Government under Starmer is nothing more than a glorified international valet service.’
But it’s now clear that, on the Prime Minister’s watch, the special relationship has been reduced to nothing more than a glorified photocall. As new tariffs were slapped onto the UK, Starmer’s only response was platitudes.
‘We are taking a calm, pragmatic approach and keeping our feet on the ground. Constructive talks are ongoing on a wider economic prosperity deal with the US,’ he announced.
Meanwhile, Trump’s feet were clad in steel-capped boots, which kept getting rammed into the nether regions of British exporters.
Yes, Starmer and the President continue to maintain a solid – if uneasy – personal relationship. But the Prime Minister is increasingly unable to leverage that into any meaningful influence over US policy making.
The conflagration many anticipated between the liberal north London lawyer and the Godfather of the MAGA movement has not materialised. And the reason for that is Trump clearly regards Starmer as a benign irrelevance.
To him, under Starmer, the British Government is nothing more than a glorified international valet service.
When he feels the whim, he will pick up the phone and Downing Street will happily arrange a tour of Windsor Castle or a round of golf at St Andrews.
As the year progresses, this disconnect between the early hopes and promise of Starmer’s foreign policy strategy and the hard geopolitical reality will become increasingly apparent.
First, there will be the trip to China, one in which the Prime Minister will not so much be waving the flag as carrying round the begging bowl.
As one minister told me, people are saying: ‘Will this be the moment Keir signs off on the new Super Embassy?’ Well, we’re so desperate for Chinese money, if they asked to build it in Buckingham Palace we’d say yes.’
Then there will be increasing spectacle of Government infighting over Brexit, and Britain’s relationship with Europe.
Starmer has decided the Brexit project has failed and has determined to become increasingly voluble in saying so.
But, as ever, he is unclear about what he thinks should replace it. We will hear much over the next few months about ‘closer alignment with the single market’. Yet precious little detail about what that alignment should actually look like.
Most damaging of all, the recognition that there is a gaping hole where No 10’s international strategy should be will embolden those preparing to mount an overt challenge to Starmer’s leadership.
His proximity to Trump. His equivocation over Gaza. His inability to paint his own compelling picture of Britain’s relationship with Europe.
All will be highlighted – to varying degrees – by Wes Streeting, Angela Rayner, Andy Burnham and the other pretenders as they manoeuvre into position to strike after May’s local elections.
People have been shocked and awed by Trump’s Venezuela adventurism. But no one is now in any doubt – if they ever were – about the lengths he will go to protect what he sees as his nation’s vital interests.
How far would Starmer go to protect Britain’s interests? No one has a clue. Including, it would seem, our Prime Minister himself.