King Charles III’s address to a joint session of the US Congress on April 28, 2026 was a masterclass in the symbolism of soft-power and political theatre. Only the second sitting British monarch to do so – after his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, in 1991 – the speech was delivered amid mounting transatlantic tensions, with a volatile and aggressive second Trump administration becoming even more unhinged, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the shadow of US-led military action against Iran and another potentially ‘forever war’. Clad in the language of the “special relationship,” shared democratic values, and forward-looking partnership, the King’s words sought to rebind two elites whose interests have long been intertwined through intelligence, finance, military projection and ideological consensus.But beneath the elegant rhetoric and standing ovations lay a studied evasion of the most pressing moral and strategic fractures of our time. The King’s emphasis on the “unbreakable” US-UK alliance, NATO unity, AUKUS, and continued support for Ukraine served familiar purposes: legitimising an unequal power dynamic that benefits Washington disproportionately while allowing Britain’s post-imperial ruling class to maintain the illusion of a partnership of equals. This is the “special relationship” that acts as an ideological narcotic – addictive for UK elites desperate for relevance after Brexit, yet binding them to the American war chariot.Celebrating the Alliance, Ignoring the CostsThe King rightly noted the depth of defence, intelligence, and security ties built over decades. He praised NATO’s invocation of Article 5 post-9/11 and urged “unyielding resolve” for Ukraine. He highlighted AUKUS as a pillar of Indo-Pacific strategy. These are not empty gestures. They reflect real elite convergence around containing rivals (Russia, China) and preserving a rules-based order largely written in London and Washington; and obeyed as they see fit, when it serves their interests at the expense of weaker states and peoples.However, this selective affirmation comes with major omissions that undermine its moral authority. Conspicuous by its absence was any meaningful reference to the humanitarian catastrophe – the UN calls it genocide – in Gaza, where Palestinian suffering has tested the credibility of Western claims to universal values.Equally glaring was the failure to address the legality and consequences of escalatory actions in the war on Iran. By focusing on alliance cohesion and multilateral institutions like NATO while skating over these flashpoints, the speech implicitly endorsed a hierarchy of concern: European security and great-power competition trump the lives and rights of those in the Global South. This is not neutrality; it is the continuation of a long pattern where Anglo-American power projects stability for itself while externalising chaos elsewhere.The King’s subtle nods to diversity, checks on executive power, and avoiding inward-looking isolationism carried an obsequious, gentle rebuke to certain aspects of the current US administration. A real King bowing before a would-be-King. Yet, the critique remained courtly and insufficiently robust given the stakes. A speech invoking Lincoln and reconciliation after 250 years of American independence could have grappled more honestly with how “shared values” are selectively applied.The Fascistic Turn and Elite ImpunityMore troubling was the near-total silence on the domestic political transformation underway in the United States. The second Trump administration has been widely characterised by critics as exhibiting authoritarian – even fascistic – tendencies. Trump’s regime is centralising executive authority, challenging institutional norms, and fostering a personality-driven politics that flirts with fascism, American style.Describing elements of this shift as ‘fascistic’ may strike some as hyperbolic, but the erosion of checks and balances, attacks on the independence of the judiciary, silencing of mainstream media, and cultivation of ultra-nationalist grievance politics warrant serious scrutiny, not polite omission. The King’s call for rededication to “selfless service” and democracy rings hollow when core threats to those very principles at home go unmentioned.This silence extends to a deeper rot within the networked elites binding the two nations: the Jeffrey Epstein files. Extensive documentation released in recent years has illuminated connections implicating figures close to both the House of Windsor – notably through Prince Andrew’s well-documented associations – and networks surrounding US President Donald Trump. Epstein’s web was not merely a scandal of personal depravity but a nexus of influence, blackmail and elite impunity spanning finance, politics and royalty.The failure of the King’s speech, and the broader royal visit, to acknowledge demands for full transparency and accountability on these files is damning. It suggests a preference for preserving institutional prestige over confronting how such networks corrupt public trust and enable predation under the cover of power.The House of Windsor and elements of the Trump orbit are not identical, but they operate within overlapping circuits of inherited and acquired influence. Omitting this reality allows the performance of moral leadership to continue uninterrupted. True reconciliation and renewal, to borrow the King’s phrasing, would require confronting these shadows rather than airbrushing them for the sake of alliance optics.A Balanced ReckoningTo be clear, the speech was not without merit. The King’s environmental undertones and appeals to shared history tapped into genuine cultural affinities. Britain’s role as a bridge between Europe, the Commonwealth, and Washington retains pragmatic value, even if exaggerated by romantic Atlanticism.Yet, balance demands acknowledging the speech’s function as elite theatre: it papers over divergences and deeper structural issues. The “special relationship” has historically served as a vehicle for US hegemony with a willing junior partner, often at the expense of independent British strategy or global equity. Elite think tanks, foundations, and royal symbolism sustain this consensus, marginalising dissenting voices on imperialism, inequality and accountability.As the US and UK mark America’s 250th anniversary of its declaration of independence, a more honest address would have confronted uncomfortable truths: the limits of militarised alliances in resolving 21st-century crises, the selective application of ‘rules’ in Gaza and Iran, the domestic authoritarianism dominating Washington, and the imperative of full Epstein disclosure to cleanse elite networks.Without such reckoning, the King’s eloquence is mere theatre that masks an unjust status quo, a relationship between Britain and the US that serves elite and imperial agendas. To be fair, that was its raison d’etre in the first placeInderjeet Parmar is professor of international politics and associate dean of research in the School of Policy and Global Affairs at City St George’s, University of London. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences and writes the American Imperium column for The Wire. His Twitter handle is @USEmpire. He is the author of several books, including Foundations of the American Century, and is currently writing on the history of the US foreign policy establishment, and Trump and the crisis of American Empire.Bamo Nouri is a Visiting Lecturer at City St George’s, University of London, an independent investigative journalist and writer with interests in American foreign policy and the international and domestic politics of West Asia.