President Donald Trump’s state visit to the United Kingdom which begins on Wednesday (September 17), arrives at a fraught juncture for Anglo-American relations, encapsulating the contradictions of a US empire straining to maintain dominance amid global challenges. The visit must be viewed through the lens of US imperialism, where economic coercion, military alliances, and (rapidly waning) soft power mask a deeper crisis of legitimacy.Trump’s engagement with Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Gaza, Ukraine, NATO, and trade agreement and trade tariffs, and China, reveals a US struggling to reconcile its stridently unilateralist impulses with the demands of an increasingly multipolar world. This visit will test the British political leader’s ability to navigate his country’s subordinate role while exposing the limits of overweening American global domination.Further exacerbating tensions, and exposing the rot at the heart of Anglo-American elite politics and culture, is the dismissal of Peter Mandelson as London’s ambassador to the United States. Erupting scandals tied to Jeffrey Epstein – both on the British side regarding Mandelson and on Trump’s own doorstep with his past associations, congressional investigations, and ongoing legal battles – threaten to cast a pall over the pomp and pageantry of a state visit.These developments inject an additional layer of diplomatic awkwardness and public scrutiny that could undermine the visit’s optics and agenda.Mandelson was slated to play a pivotal role in coordinating the state events, including bilateral talks on trade and security. His exit leaves a vacancy in the most critical diplomatic posting, potentially disrupting preparations and forcing an interim appointee to navigate the Epstein fallout. Critics, including an online petition with over 170,000 signatures urging Starmer to cancel Trump’s visit altogether, argue it highlights the UK government’s vulnerability to Epstein-linked embarrassments.The visit will reignite domestic tensions. While over 100,000 people supported a far right march in London against migrants, 60% of Britons view Trump unfavourably and just 37% of the public see the US in positive terms.Starmer’s appointment of the Blairite Mandelson as envoy to Washington reflected a pragmatic bid to charm Trump, which he did, but the UK’s concessions – such as tariff reductions on US goods – reveal its weak bargaining position. The prospect of a strengthened partnership is tempered by the reality that Britain’s alignment with US priorities often comes at the expense of its European ties, which is emblematic of US hegemonic control.Mass street protests are already brewing, with the Stop Trump Coalition vowing “even bigger” demonstrations than the 250,000-strong “carnival of resistance” in 2019, including revivals of the infamous Trump baby blimp. Mandelson’s sacking amplifies calls from Scottish nationalists and Greens to scrap the trip, framing it as rewarding Trump’s “misogyny, racism, and xenophobia.”It remains to be seen if the far right will use the occasion to raise their flags in support of a Trump administration actively undermining British trade, demanding the government open up the much-loved National Health Service to American corporate investment including higher drug prices from US pharmaceutical firms, and maintaining Britain under its imperial thumb.The assassination of the far-right Trump cheerleader Charlie Kirk a few days ago adds fuel to the fire of the rising wave of right-wing extremism of Reform UK and the Tommy Robinson-led movement that called the far right march, and to which Starmer has been pandering. Like his liberal political counterparts in the US, Starmer has condemned Kirk’s assassination as an attack on free speech. Meanwhile, he has been totally silent on the far right march – the largest of its kind in British history.On the Kirk matter and the far right march, the two leaders will share common ground, showing how symbiotically-connected are Anglo-American establishment liberals and extreme right-wingers.Anglo-American relations: A subordinate ally’s dilemmaThe US-UK “special relationship” has always probably always been a misnomer, a veneer for Britain’s post-empire junior status in America’s global imperium. Trump’s visit, following his July 2025 meeting with Starmer at Turnberry, Scotland, underscores this asymmetry. Starmer’s Labour government, grappling with post-Brexit vulnerabilities, seeks to deepen ties with both the US and the EU, but Trump’s “America First” agenda – marked by tariff threats and public critiques of UK policies like North Sea oil closures – exerts coercive pressure.The royal invitation, delivered by Starmer in February 2025, is a calculated act of deference, echoing the post-Suez crisis (1956) British establishment efforts to curry favour with US presidents. Yet, such gestures merely reinforce Britain’s dependence, limiting its strategic autonomy.Gaza: Humanitarian rhetoric, imperial continuity The humanitarian crisis in Gaza, discussed during Trump and Starmer’s July 2025 meeting, is a critical issue for the visit. This is even more pointedly the case since Israel’s unprovoked and illegal attack on the Hamas leaders in Qatar who were gathered at the US’s behest to consider fresh ceasefire proposals. Trump’s pledge of $30 million for aid distribution centres, coupled with his emphasis on feeding Gaza’s children, appears humanitarian but aligns with US strategies to maintain influence in the Middle East.US foreign policy often cloaks strategic interests in moral rhetoric, and Trump’s approach – criticising Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s denial of starvation while avoiding structural solutions, including any cut in military, diplomatic or financial support for Israel’s genocidal war – fits this pattern. Starmer, under pressure from Labour’s left wing to address Gaza’s plight, pushes for a ceasefire, but his reliance on US leadership limits Britain’s agency, even if in this case the UK’s support for a cessation of Israeli violence rings hollow.The visit may see renewed commitments to humanitarian aid, but the failure of a prior Gaza ceasefire reflects the US’s prioritization of Israeli interests over Palestinian lives and international law. Prospects for progress are dim, as Trump’s focus on short-term aid gestures sidesteps the root causes of the conflict, reinforcing US control over the region’s geopolitical narrative while Britain plays a supporting role.Ukraine: A tactical recalibration of US roleThe Russia-Ukraine war dominates the visit’s security agenda, with Trump’s evolving stance exposing the tactical US move to woo Russia away from its “comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era” with China. His August 2025 Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin and his push for a Putin-Zelenskyy meeting reflect a transactional approach, prioritizing swift deals.US foreign policy subordinates allies to its strategic goals, and Trump’s refusal to send US troops to Ukraine, coupled with his rejection of NATO membership for Kyiv, signals a shift toward cost-saving unilateralism as well as a strategic aim to prise apart Russia from its close relations with China. Starmer’s commitment to Ukraine, including potential British troop deployments for “peace-monitoring”, contrasts with Trump’s pressure on Europe to bear the burden.The visit will likely focus on aligning US-UK approaches to Ukraine, but Trump’s shortened 10-12 day deadline for a peace deal and threats of tariffs on Russia suggest a coercive strategy that risks alienating European allies. Such moves reflect a US empire in decline, unwilling and possibly unable to sustain the costs of managing a global empire. Prospects for a cohesive transatlantic strategy are uncertain, with Britain caught between supporting Ukraine and placating Trump’s demands.NATO: A fracturing alliance NATO, a lynchpin of US global dominance, faces strain under Trump’s scepticism. His demand for allies to spend 5% of GDP on defence, far exceeding the UK’s 2.3%, and his praise for arms sales to NATO for Ukraine’s benefit reflect a transactional view of alliances. NATO is a major apparatus for US power projection, and Trump’s approach—praising the alliance as “no longer obsolete” only after increased European contributions – underscores its role as a lever for American interests.Starmer will likely reaffirm the UK’s NATO commitment, but discussions may centre on deploying US F-35s to Romania as a security guarantee for Ukraine – a move that may reinforce US control over European security.The visit’s prospects for NATO depend on Starmer’s ability to secure Trump’s commitment without conceding his broader demands. Yet, the alliance’s cohesion is at risk as Trump’s unilateralism pushes Europe toward alternative defence pacts, a trend signalled by UK-France-Germany talks.Trade and tariffs: Economic coercion The US-UK trade deal, announced on May 8, 2025, is a cornerstone of the visit but exemplifies US economic dominance. The framework reduces tariffs on British steel and cars but leaves a 10% baseline tariff, with full relief delayed. Tariffs are clearly instruments of US coercion, and Trump’s policies – threatening 20% global tariffs and 60% on China – force Britain into compliance. Starmer’s avoidance of retaliation, unlike China or the EU, reflects Britain’s post-Brexit vulnerabilities, reinforcing American economic hegemony.The visit may advance the trade deal, but Trump’s demands, such as revising the UK’s Digital Services Tax, or opening up the National Health Service for American penetration, prioritise US corporate interests. Prospects for a balanced agreement are slim, as Britain’s economic dependence limits its leverage against a more powerful and aggressive imperial power.China: A geopolitical fault line Trump’s aggressive tariffs on China and his criticism of the September 3, 2025, Beijing military parade signal a broader confrontation with a rising power. The aim is to contain China, and Trump’s policies – threatening secondary sanctions on nations buying Russian oil – extend this strategy. The UK, wary of a US-China trade war’s economic fallout, seeks to balance relations with both powers through a strategy of “progressive realism” that entails selective economic cooperation with China while aligning with the US to contain the emerging superpower.The visit may press Starmer to align with Trump’s anti-China stance, but Britain’s European ties complicate this. Prospects for cooperation are uncertain, as US pressure risks entangling the UK in a conflict that serves American, not British, interests, reinforcing the point that US hegemony subordinates allies to its geopolitical aims.Trump’s 2025 UK visit encapsulates the contradictions of a US empire in turmoil, using tariffs, alliances, and humanitarian rhetoric to maintain dominance while retreating (or rather recalibrating) from its historic global responsibilities. Starmer’s efforts to secure trade concessions, support Ukraine, and (however limply) address Gaza’s crisis are constrained by Britain’s subordinate role. The visit may yield symbolic progress – a trade framework, NATO reaffirmations – but at the cost of reinforcing US control.As the world shifts towards a messy multipolarity, in which Western influence is declining, Britain’s navigation of Trump’s visit underscores the challenges of resisting American coercive hegemony while pursuing its own (elite) interests in a turbulent world.Beneath the Windsor banquets and Chequers handshakes, the intertwined crises in Britain and America of economic stagnation, tariff-fuelled insecurity, and political fracture reveal not a renewed special relationship, but the hollow core of Western liberalism: a network of elites clinging to power through spectacle, even as ordinary people in both nations face the grinding realities of austerity, inequality and a global order buckling under its own contradictions. Not to speak of one where Gaza’s bloodied ledger merely underscores the moral and material bankruptcy of it all.Inderjeet Parmar is a 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, a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, and a columnist at The Wire. He is an International Fellow at the ROADS Initiative think tank, Islamabad, and author of several books including Foundations of the American Century. He is currently writing a book on the history, politics and crises of the US foreign policy establishment.