The “special relationship” between the United States and Britain is being tested as never before. Recent months have shown Washington treating London less as a core strategic partner and more as a subordinate – whose loyalty must be continually tested.
US President Donald Trump’s comments on Irish reunification, his repeated “51st state” rhetoric toward Canada (pushing it closer towards the European Union), and now the Falklands dispute form a clear pattern.
The United States and the United Kingdom certainly have weathered disagreements before – from Suez to Vietnam. Yet the current approach may risk something more profound.
Trump’s September visit to Dublin, for one thing, brought the Irish question into the open – at a time when the United Kingdom faces calls to break up from the Celtic leaders. Against (rather unprecedented) backdrop, the American leader said he would “love to see” a united Ireland, and even called it “inevitable”.
Previous US Presidents kept a careful distance from this sensitive issue under the Good Friday Agreement. London and unionists took notice. To be clear, these remarks were not policy, but they marked a departure from long-standing neutrality and landed at a moment when British-American ties were already fraying.
The Canada episode is more direct, in a way. Trump’s talk of annexation and tariffs challenged the sovereignty of a country of which King Charles is Head of State. Canadian leaders treated it as a threat to national independence. King Charles’s own speech to the Canadian Parliament was an affirmation of Canada’s independence (in relation to the US).
Then came the issue of Malvinas, known by the British as Falklands, as I recently commented.
The American President is now questioning whether Washington should keep its traditional stance on the islands – and indicated Washington could not promise automatic support for Britain in any future conflict.
This might be linked to British reluctance to join US operations against Iran on the terms Washington preferred, and to broader complaints about NATO defence spending. This is no small matter: Brexit campaigner Daniel Hannan has warned that an American shift on the Falklands would “wreck” the Atlantic alliance.
For Washington to provoke or challenge London on sensitive issues for the British such as the Falklands or even Irish reunification, one may ask what Washington hopes to achieve.
The pattern points to what has often been described as a more “transactional” view of alliances. The point is that American protection and its diplomatic backing become conditional on visible compliance with the President’s priorities of the moment.
Defence spending, base access, and participation in US-led campaigns then turn into tests of loyalty: it would seem Britain’s decision not to give a blank check, so to speak, on Iran was treated as a personal slight rather than a sovereign judgment about risks and international law.
Thus far, the institutional ties remain deep, comprising, among other things, Five Eyes intelligence, nuclear cooperation renewed “indefinitely”, joint bases, and military interoperability. Considering this, the Washington Post has argued that the relationship will “weather the storm”.
Le Monde, however, has highlighted a special relationship “tested” by Trump. In any case, it is safe to say, at the very least, that the political trust in this bilateral relationship is eroding.
For instance, British officials have reiterated quite vocally that the Falkland Islanders determine their own future and that sovereignty is not for sale. They have also pledged to “stand with Ukraine” at a time when Washington has directed its criticism towards such a politically embattled leader as Zelensky.
The Ukrainian President now faces major corruption scandals, and has attacked Russian refineries reportedly behind America’s back – amid a rise in diesel prices globally.
The removal of US B-1 bombers from a British base and friction over AI model access add perhaps smaller but telling friction points nonetheless. America’s approach risks alienating Washington’s closest Western partner.
The UK is not merely another NATO member. Its intelligence reach, nuclear arrangements, and global diplomatic presence cannot be replaced overnight.
When controversial and sensitive territorial questions become bargaining chips, other allies cannot help but take note. The underreported cost here is that partners may begin planning for greater autonomy precisely because American commitments look less reliable – in a backfiring effect.
Not surprisingly, some in London may already be looking harder at European defence options while still seeking to preserve the special relationship somehow.
Ironically, in seeking greater control over its allies (through threats and leverage), Washington may encourage precisely the strategic independence that could ultimately diminish American influence.
Uriel Araujo, researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.