LONDON — Keir Starmer is used to biting his tongue when it comes to U.S. foreign policy — but Donald Trump’s latest adventure is particularly awkward for the British prime minister.
Starmer is a former human rights lawyer who has described international law as his “lodestar.”
But in power, he has strived desperately to keep Trump onside on a whole host of issues — even when U.S. action appears to fly in the face of Starmer’s cherished legal norms.
It’s got the embattled Labour leader facing fresh charges of timidity at a time his political rivals on the left and right are free to paint in primary colors.
Starmer’s delicate balancing act was on display this weekend when the British PM described Nicolás Maduro — the Venezuelan leader dramatically ousted by U.S. forces acting under Trump — as “an illegitimate president,” with only a passing reference to Starmer’s own backing of international law.
Starmer added Monday that global rules are “really important,” but stressed that “it’s for the U.S. to set out its justifications for the actions that it’s taken.”
On Trump’s repeated threats to annex Greenland, Starmer has managed a more robust response — while still avoiding directly criticizing the U.S. president.
Asked if he stands with his European and NATO ally, Danish PM Mette Frederiksen, and her demand that Trump stop talking about taking control of the territory, Starmer said: “I stand with her, and she’s right about the future of Greenland.”
One Labour MP elected in 2024, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said that the latest U.S. intervention “should give us a kick up the arse” when it comes to recognizing Trump’s real priorities on the international stage.
‘Not in our national interest’
Starmer’s comparative silence on Venezuela has drawn inevitable complaints from the left, with the now-suspended Labour veteran Diane Abbott posting on X: “If you cannot say this is illegal all your talk of human rights, the law and democracy is so much hot air.”
But skepticism about his approach has not been confined to the usual suspects on the left. Emily Thornberry, the Labour chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and erstwhile Starmer ally, said of the U.S. action Monday: “We need to be clearer that this has been a breach of international law and we do not agree that they should have done it.”
Thornberry acknowledged the need to “keep a very important ally like America on board,” but told Times Radio “it’s meaningless if we don’t support international law.”
Stella Creasy, a Labour backbencher, meanwhile argued that “left unchallenged, Trump’s actions in Venezuela set a troubling precedent [that] international law is optional.”
Staid Starmer
Starmer is already battling a perception among some Labour MPs and the electorate that he is cautious to the point of timidity — a charge this latest episode will do little to dispel.
Starmer’s detractors argue his reticence is particularly marked in contrast with leaders from other parties, including left-leaning rivals in the Greens’ Zack Polanski and the Liberal Democrats’ Ed Davey, who both issued statements attacking Trump.
“Keir Starmer should condemn Trump’s illegal action in Venezuela,” Davey argued. “Maduro is a brutal and illegitimate dictator, but unlawful attacks like this make us all less safe. Trump is giving a green light to the likes of Putin and Xi to attack other countries with impunity.”
Even Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK and a personal friend of Trump’s, took a stronger line, stating that the U.S. president had indeed violated international law with his Venezuela takeover, but that “it may be a good thing.”
Starmer may not be overly concerned by criticism of his wider silence on Trump. His supporters argue that the PM should not be baited into reactive politics, and that his relationship with the White House is ultimately more important than reaching for the megaphone every time.
As a former director of public prosecutions, Starmer is steeped in the language of process, precedent, and restraint.
Asked by the BBC at the weekend whether Trump was helping create global turmoil, Starmer said: “Our defense, our security, and our intelligence relationship with the U.S. matters probably more than any other relationship that we have in the world, and it would not be in our national interest to weaken that in any way.”
However, the discussion over Trump’s latest move is undoubtedly sucking oxygen away from Starmer’s overriding aim this year: to be seen as a prime minister focused relentlessly on tackling affordability concerns at home.
His pitch to his own restive MPs and the public is that this year they will begin to see the fruits of his government’s efforts to fix the health service, stabilize the economy and rebuild trust.
At a media appearance Monday, Starmer was instead peppered with questions on regime change in Caracas and his support for Denmark.
