🔗 Share this article

As the former US president met with a smiling Keir Starmer and senior royals on his UK state visit in recent days, many observers found themselves analyzing the non-verbal cues on display.

Did the PM’s hand wave suggest he wanted to ask about migrants allegedly detained in the southern US state? Might King Charles’s facial expression hint he was wondering about individuals who have accused Trump of inappropriate behavior?

Nevertheless, the situation felt best not to think the implications. This appeared to be the attitude of the visit. While demonstrators lined the roads, the British delegation stuck its fingers in its ears and pulled out the pageantry: a gilded horse-drawn coach, a military ceremony, and senior figures seeming enthused.

At moments it seemed like the public were extras in a worse version of a satirical film, where hopeful figures do not stand up the villainous American leader.

There is a strategic justification for wooing Trump. Maintaining the close ties is believed with shielding the UK from steep trade taxes, while the most recent visit apparently aligned with a significant financial commitment from US firms. However, the reality that Trump’s schedule guided him clear of London – avoiding larger protests – and occurred while government was in recess reveals a sense that little of this is truly appropriate.

Whether it is the situation in Gaza or the rise of inhumane immigration policies, it is the pretence that our present era is ordinary that is deeply insanity-inducing. Or to put it another way: you know there is an issue with a state visit when it begins with an image of the honored visitor next to a disgraced figure displayed on a royal castle.

Trump’s unprecedented second state visit to the UK is, in essence, a form of pragmatic gaslighting, in which the public is informed that a figure who has proposed to take over a national police force should be given the actual royal treatment.

That Trump is in the country shortly after what is believed to have been the biggest far-right event in Britain in decades makes this discomfort all the more noticeable. It is hard not to feel that a problem is being allowed to grow, as radical ideologies become more visible and a US president who recently applauded the removal of a media personality for satirical comments enjoys an extensive military welcome.

The pomp and pageantry given to Trump is a especially obvious example of what is, on each shore of the Atlantic, a widespread acceptance of the unacceptable.

The challenge we are facing is only worsened by the perception that our government leaders are profoundly unequipped to address the scale of the problem. There was a notable period over the recent days when it was unclear whether the government head would even comment to the march. Eventually, it took nearly 24 hours for the government to issue a message rejecting intimidation based on origin or appearance.

Several days after a prominent business magnate called for the dissolution of parliament, the administration is still utilizing his social media service for government purposes. The Prime Minister posted about the UK being a just and decent nation, notably falling short of alluding to the extremist movement.

At the time of writing, the head of the opposition has not openly addressed the mass event led by controversial individuals, although has promoted a new broadcasting show.

I can’t help but think back political moments, when a leader called a constituent a negative label for voicing concerns about immigration. I’m not suggesting that disparagement are the answer, but it raises the issue: when will our officials identify a racist a racist? And what does it reveal about the present political culture that leaves them so afraid to do so?

This week, it was largely left to one of the few representatives in UK politics to criticize Trump for fueling the flames of polarizing, far-right politics globally. It stands as a stark lesson in failure to act versus bravery.

In the coming days, Trump will be away from British land. However, the challenge he embodies will remain. Hostility and division cannot be sent away on a plane. Addressing it requires extended, difficult conversations and courageous steps. If Starmer and co are up to the challenge is the uncertainty. One thing’s for sure: to effectively solve a threat, you must first name it.