‘A Trump win is far from unthinkable. Labour must plan for that eventuality’

Look away now if you are of a nervous disposition. With less than one year to go before the US election, opinion polls show Donald Trump ahead in key swing states and well placed to return to power as the next President of the United States.

This has sent jittery Democrats into deep soul-searching about whether Joe Biden, 82 next year, is the best candidate to lead the party – and poses a significant challenge to a future Labour government under Keir Starmer.

Labour Prime Ministers have had to work with Republican Presidents before, of course, despite political and ideological differences. Harold Wilson got on well with Richard Nixon, while Tony Blair’s close relationship with George W Bush was cemented following the Camp David love-in weeks after the latter’s inauguration in 2001.

But Starmer and his team face a diplomatic test of a different order of magnitude in dealing with a potential future President still smarting from his defeat in 2020 and on a personal mission to destroy fundamental elements of long-settled American policy at home and abroad.

Trump’s agenda poses a threat to Labour’s policy programme

Make no mistake, if the first Trump presidency was chaotic, a second would be brutal. He would enter the Oval Office far better prepared than he was in 2016 armed with a plan for government (it’s called Agenda 47 as he would be the US’s 47th President if he wins next year) being pieced together by hand-picked right-wing groups and think-tankers.

Large parts of this plan pose a grave threat to key planks of Labour’s own policy programme. Trump’s threat to US membership of NATO, weakening of support to Ukraine and his ambivalence towards a two-state solution in the Middle East would all significantly challenge key UK foreign policy goals.

And there are big risks elsewhere, too. Greater US protectionism would hamper Labour’s economic and trade objectives, and Trump’s promises to reinvest in fossil fuel exploration and production in the US – and withdraw from international agreements on climate change – would represent a significant set-back to the party’s global environmental ambitions.

Starmer must decide how far he would be willing to engage

The UK’s economic and security ties to the US are too important for any British government to turn away from. But Starmer will soon need to start working out how far he is willing to actively engage with a Trump presidency – both in public and in private – to mitigate the worst impacts of how its policies affect the UK.

Active personal engagement with Trump is not for the faint-hearted though, as Theresa May found out to her cost when she rushed over to DC to greet the then new President soon after his inauguration in 2017. Trump’s unpredictability, foibles and propensity for picking fights all make this a diplomatic task from hell.

And any attempt by Starmer to get close to Trump to defend national interests would also face significant hostility at home from those expecting a Labour administration to take a firm public stand against a man who earlier this month echoed the words of Adolf Hitler in promising to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections”.

Has Labour’s US engagement been too focused on political allies?

Given the chilling and unpredictable political environment, some observers are asking whether Labour’s current engagement with the US political system has, so far, been too focused on the comfort-zone of engagement with political allies in the Democrat administration and party.

Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy – who was over in Washington with Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey recently – has long-standing Democrat contacts. Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves was here in May on a high-profile visit, expressing her admiration for so-called “Bidenomics” of massive public investment in green technologies.

Reeves’s trip illustrated how close the policy relationship between Starmer’s team and the Biden administration has become in the last 18 months. But her support for Biden’s economic policies is not widely shared by the American public. Despite high rates of GDP growth, voters are – according to the polls – deeply pessimistic about their economic position, and Biden’s support, particularly among swing voters, has crumbled as a result.

Labour would do well to widen its engagement in the US

Many senior Democrats offer a more optimistic picture of Biden’s prospects next year than the polls and dismiss any suggestion that he could be replaced as the party’s candidate. They insist that, the nearer the election looms, so the choice for the US electorate becomes a clearer one.

Trump may be miles ahead of his rivals to win the Republican nomination. But his growing legal problems are a reminder to voters of the chaos of his first term in the White House. Further falls in inflation coupled with high jobs growth will, Biden’s supporters believe, provide a positive economic story at the election.

Let’s hope they’re right. But Labour would do well to widen its engagement here in the US not just to Republicans on the Hill – but beyond the Washington beltway and to the states with influence and power too. After all, even if Biden does win a second presidential term, there is a good chance that the GOP will control both the Senate and the House of Representatives after November with a significant hold on key policy issues affecting the UK.

Last month, the German Foreign Minister – a leading member of the Green Party – travelled to Austin in Texas to promote her country’s businesses and to meet with state governor Greg Abbott, a Trump ally and fervent supporter of the US oil and gas industry, gun ownership and abortion bans.

It was a stark reminder that the most effective diplomacy in support of national interest rarely involves engaging with political allies. As he and his team prepare to take up the reins of office in the UK, Starmer would do well not only to hope for the best here in the US but to plan for the worst as well.