Trump is more pro-Britain than the British
washingtonexaminer.com -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 4:28:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Trade Policy & Tariffs, Foreign Policy & International Relations
Vice President JD Vance is spending his vacation in the Cotswolds, one of a cohort of MAGA-aligned politicians, business leaders, and commentators to have descended on those thatched, honey-colored villages this summer.
Tory members of Parliament and conservative commentators have been paying court to the vice president in his rented 18th-century Gloucestershire manor and all report the same thing. He is, they say, a man who feels deeply for Britain, who regards it as the cradle of American values, and who is commensurately anguished to see its retreat from its ancient liberties.
A State Department report published during his vacation made headlines in the United Kingdom. It found an alarming rise in antisemitic incidents and cases of people being charged for posting offensive content online. It caused quite a stir. The British are not used to being monitored for human rights abuses like so many Venezuelans or Iraqis. Yet, at the same time, most Brits recognize that there has indeed been an erosion of free speech, usually in the name of elevating the sensitivities, real or imagined, of racial and religious minorities.
"The American," Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, "is the Englishman left to himself". Not for the first time, we see that British political culture has survived better in the New World than in the Old. Lacking a First Amendment, Britain is sinking into an illiberalism that would have been unimaginable in either country a century ago. The land of Lilburne and Locke, Wycliffe and Wilkes, Milton and Mill -- and that's just the Johns -- has embraced unofficial blasphemy laws, this time designed to protect the trinity of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Where does this leave a U.S. administration that, like all its predecessors, even during the Obama presidency, looks to the U.K. as its chief political and diplomatic ally? Trump goes out of his way to be nice about British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Vance seems to have a genuine affection for the slow-witted foreign secretary, David Lammy. But nothing can disguise the gap in values between the two governments.
On the chief foreign policy issues of the day, namely the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, the two English-speaking powers could hardly be further apart. With Trump set to have an unprecedented second state visit to his mother's country next month, is there anything to agree on?
The only option left, implausible as it might sound, is commerce. True, Trump has consistently opined that "trade is bad". Yet, during his first term, he set out to secure an ambitious trade deal with post-EU Britain and seemed genuinely miffed when President Joe Biden canceled the talks. Much of the preliminary work had already been done, and my sense is that the president would like to crown his state visit with some kind of deal.
Even here, though, the American administration is more pro-Britain than the British one. Starmer has, to be fair, been ready to face down the reflexive anti-Americanism of his party's far Left. But he has been less brave when it comes to diverging from EU standards, which is the only way to make beneficial trade deals. In particular, the British prime minister, who for years tried to overturn the Brexit referendum, refuses to move away from even the most unscientific and protectionist EU food regulations, thereby keeping his country as an artificial captive market for European exporters. And that is before we come to the commercial implications of Britain's online restrictions on U.S. tech giants.
AMERICA IS DEVELOPING A FREE SPEECH PROBLEM
Again and again, we have been the Rhett and Scarlett of international relations, our timing always awry. Former Prime Minister David Cameron, an old-school Atlanticist, was paired with former President Barack Obama, who saw Britain through the lens of 1950s anticolonialism. When Trump came to power in 2016, he found himself opposite the pathologically indecisive Prime Minister Theresa May, who could not make up her mind whether she wanted an independent trade policy at all. When the Manhattan-born Boris Johnson replaced her, he went full tilt for a closer alliance, but COVID-19 interrupted, and then Biden came in, determined to advance Irish and EU interests at Britain's expense. By the time Trump came back, he was dealing with Starmer.
Perhaps, next time, the cycles will align, Vance will find himself dealing with some kind of Conservative-Reform UK government, and the Atlantic alliance that made the 20th century the freest and happiest in human history will be restored. We can only hope.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent article discussing Vice President JD Vance's vacation in the Cotswolds and the perceived pro-British sentiments of the Trump administration raises critical questions about the evolving relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. In an era where both nations face significant challenges, the implications of such political dynamics are worth scrutinizing, particularly through the lens of historical context and ongoing social justice struggles.
Historically, the United States and the United Kingdom have shared a complex relationship rooted in their intertwined histories of colonialism, war, and democratic evolution. The founding principles of the U.S. were heavily influenced by British political thought, particularly the works of Enlightenment figures like John Locke and John Milton. However, as the article suggests, there seems to be an alarming divergence in the political values and approaches to governance between the two nations, particularly concerning issues of human rights and free speech. The rising antisemitism reported in the State Department’s findings serves as a reminder that social justice is often a contentious battleground, where the interests of marginalized communities clash with broader political narratives.
The commentary from British officials and conservative commentators regarding Vance's sentiments points to a troubling trend: the glorification of a bygone era when Britain was perceived as the bastion of free expression and liberal ideals. The article reflects a nostalgic view that overlooks the complexities of contemporary British society, where the fight for racial and religious equality remains an ongoing struggle. The assertion that the U.K. is retreating into "illiberalism" under the guise of promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion ignores the very real and historical injustices faced by minority communities. It raises questions about who gets to define "freedom" and "liberty" and for whom these concepts are actually upheld.
Moreover, the article's framing of the British political landscape as being "more pro-Britain than the British" is indicative of a broader disillusionment with nationalist rhetoric that often oversimplifies the intricacies of governance. The notion that the Trump administration can be seen as a champion of British values while simultaneously fostering a divisive political environment at home reflects a dangerous hypocrisy. As the U.S. grapples with its own systemic issues—including rampant racism, economic inequality, and attacks on reproductive rights—it becomes increasingly clear that the U.K. and U.S. cannot simply be viewed through the lens of cultural and historical camaraderie. Rather, they must be held accountable for their roles in perpetuating social injustices both domestically and internationally.
In addition, the mention of commerce as a potential unifying factor between the two nations brings to light the inherent contradictions in the political ideologies professed by leaders like Trump and Vance. Despite their claims that trade is detrimental, the reality is that economic interests often take precedence over ethical concerns. This juxtaposition raises a critical point about the role of capitalism in shaping international relations. The idea of forging a trade deal with a post-EU Britain might appeal to certain political factions, but it also invites scrutiny regarding the implications for workers' rights, environmental protections, and social equity. As the world grapples with climate change and economic disparity, prioritizing commerce over social justice often exacerbates existing inequalities.
Finally, as we consider the rift in values between the U.S. and U.K., it is essential to recognize the voices of those who are often left out of these discussions: the marginalized communities who bear the brunt of these political maneuvers. The historical context of colonialism, imperialism, and systemic discrimination must inform our understanding of current events. The increasing normalization of harmful ideologies in both nations necessitates a collective response rooted in solidarity and justice. As citizens engage in dialogue about the relationships between their governments and the implications for social justice, it is crucial to elevate the experiences of those who are most affected by these policies and to advocate for a more equitable and just world for all.
The recent article highlighting Vice President JD Vance's affinity for Britain raises critical questions about the evolving nature of international relationships, particularly between the United States and the United Kingdom. The juxtaposition of Vance's admiration for British culture against a backdrop of rising antisemitic incidents and a perceived erosion of free speech in the U.K. suggests a deeper ideological chasm that transcends mere political theatrics. The article posits that the U.S. administration is more "pro-Britain" than the British government itself. This claim prompts us to reflect on the historical ties that bind the two nations and the implications of shifting political sentiments on both sides of the Atlantic.
Historically, the U.S. has often looked to the U.K. as a foundational ally, with shared values emerging from Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and John Milton. However, the political landscape has altered significantly over the decades. The rise of far-right populism, exemplified by figures like Trump and Vance, has introduced a brand of nationalism that often undermines these shared values. The article notes that the U.K. is experiencing an erosion of free speech in the name of protecting diverse identities, suggesting a contradiction in the very liberal ideals that were once a hallmark of British political identity. As progressive Americans, it is crucial to understand how historical alliances are impacted by contemporary political ideologies, especially when those ideologies threaten to distort the foundational tenets of democracy and human rights.
The juxtaposition of the current U.S. administration's priorities with those of the British government raises questions about the future of international cooperation on pressing global issues. As the article points out, the U.S. and U.K. are at odds on significant foreign policy matters like the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. This divergence highlights a growing disconnection between established political elites and the shifting sentiments of their constituents, particularly regarding international humanitarian issues. It is vital for Americans to engage with these topics thoughtfully, advocating for diplomatic approaches grounded in human rights, social justice, and a commitment to international law.
So what can we do as American citizens in response to these complex dynamics? First, we can amplify discourse around the importance of free speech and human rights, both domestically and internationally. Engaging in community discussions, writing letters to elected officials, and participating in advocacy groups can help ensure that our voices are heard as we push back against illiberal tendencies. Furthermore, we must educate ourselves and others on the implications of foreign policy decisions that affect not just our allies, but the global community. Understanding the interconnectedness of issues, such as climate change, migration, and social equity, can foster a sense of global solidarity that transcends national boundaries.
Lastly, as we navigate these turbulent political waters, it is essential to foster avenues for cross-cultural dialogue. Initiatives that promote understanding and collaboration between American and British citizens can help bridge the ideological divides that have emerged. Whether through academic partnerships, cultural exchanges, or grassroots movements, fostering relationships based on mutual respect and shared values can counteract the divisive rhetoric that permeates contemporary politics. As citizens engaged in shaping the future, we must seize the opportunity to advocate for a more humane and equitable world, recognizing that the challenges we face are not confined to any one nation but are part of a broader global narrative.
In conclusion, the complexities of the U.S.-U.K. relationship as outlined in the article signal a critical moment for both nations. By examining the historical context and current political landscape, we can gain insights into the challenges that lie ahead. It is our responsibility as engaged citizens to advocate for values that promote justice, equality, and a commitment to international cooperation. In doing so, we can not only honor the rich history of our shared past but also work towards a more inclusive and equitable future for all.
In response to the article that discusses the perceived alignment of certain U.S. politicians with British values, despite concerns regarding human rights and free speech, there are several actionable steps individuals can take to advocate for a more equitable and just political landscape. Here’s a list of ideas and specific actions to consider:
### Personal Actions
1. **Educate Yourself and Others**: - Read up on the implications of free speech laws and human rights issues in both the U.S. and the U.K. Share this knowledge by organizing community discussions or book clubs focused on these themes.
2. **Engage with Local Representatives**: - Contact your local representatives to express your views on human rights and free speech. Research their stance on related issues and ask them to prioritize these concerns in their agendas.
### Specific Actions
1. **Petition for Human Rights Protections**: - Start or sign a petition advocating for stronger protections for human rights and free speech both domestically and internationally. Use platforms such as Change.org to generate support. - Example Petition: **"Uphold Human Rights in Speech and Expression"** (Create a petition on Change.org)
2. **Write to Elected Officials**: - Draft a letter to your representatives in Congress expressing your concern about the alignment of U.S. foreign policy with countries that may not uphold human rights. - **Example Contact Information**: - **Senator Elizabeth Warren**: Email: senator_warren@warren.senate.gov; Address: 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 New Sudbury Street, Boston, MA 02203 - **Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez**: Email: aoc.house.gov/contact; Address: 1231 W 181st St, New York, NY 10033
3. **Support Advocacy Groups**: - Donate to or volunteer with organizations that focus on human rights, media freedom, and anti-discrimination efforts. Examples include: - **Human Rights Watch**: [hrw.org](https://www.hrw.org) - **Amnesty International**: [amnesty.org](https://www.amnesty.org)
4. **Participate in Public Demonstrations**: - Join or organize local rallies that advocate for civil liberties and human rights. Check local event boards or social media platforms for opportunities.
5. **Utilize Social Media**: - Use platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook to raise awareness about the erosion of rights in the U.K. and the U.S. Share articles, create infographics, or start conversations about these issues.
6. **Engage in Community Activism**: - Collaborate with local community organizations to host workshops or forums that address civil liberties and human rights issues. This can include inviting speakers, hosting panels, or facilitating discussions.
### What to Say
When you contact representatives or engage in public discourse, consider the following points:
- **Express Concern**: Clearly articulate your concerns regarding the erosion of free speech and human rights protections. Reference specific incidents or reports that highlight these issues. - **Advocate for Change**: Urge your representatives to take a stand on human rights and free speech both domestically and in their foreign policy. - **Call for Accountability**: Ask representatives to prioritize the protection of minority rights and to oppose any measures that infringe upon freedom of expression. - **Request Transparency**: Encourage lawmakers to be transparent about their positions and actions regarding human rights and to engage in dialogue with communities affected by these issues.
By taking these steps, individuals can contribute to a broader movement advocating for human rights and the preservation of free speech, fostering a more just society both at home and abroad.