How the Right-Wing British Press Became Trump's Trumpet
The journalism of The Independent is supported by our readers. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn commission.
Winston Churchill would be utterly appalled by the kinds of things Donald Trump says and does. Yet Fleet Street appears content to disregard historical precedent for the sake of political point-scoring, as noted by Alan Rusbridger in his analysis of recent events.
Trump's Media Offensive Against Starmer
Saturday 07 March 2026 06:00 GMT marked another chapter in Trump's ongoing campaign against British leadership. While wildfires from a newly ignited war demanded attention, Trump instead dedicated time to disparaging Prime Minister Keir Starmer through any available British journalist. The thought, "And you, Mr President, are no Franklin D Roosevelt," might have crossed Starmer's mind when Trump declared, "this is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with." However, Starmer wisely refrained from public response, adhering to the adage that when Trump goes low, it's best to leave him there.
Trump's strategy involved targeting media outlets known for their hostility toward the beleaguered prime minister. He granted extensive interviews to The Sun, Daily Mail, and The Daily Telegraph, using these platforms to vent frustrations. To Harry Cole of The Sun, Trump complained bitterly about Britain's failure to immediately offer unequivocal backing for US planes to attack Iran from UK territories. He questioned the current state of the "special relationship" and speculated whether Starmer was attempting to appease Muslim voters.
His rants extended to London Mayor Sadiq Khan, demands for immediate oil drilling in the North Sea, and comments suggesting Britain was no longer "such a recognisable country"—a statement whose coded meaning required little decryption. Trump fumed that Britain's lack of cooperation was "unlike anything that had happened between our countries before," displaying either ignorance or disregard for historical context.
The Corleone Instinct and Media Complicity
Trump's decision to launch verbal missiles through these specific titles reflects what might be termed his Corleone instinct: to undermine, denigrate, or destroy anyone perceived as showing insufficient respect. This approach has left 218 Republican representatives in Congress adopting a dorsal recumbent posture, none willing to risk confrontation. Similarly, the journalists on the receiving end of Trump's calls offered little pushback, functioning more as conduits than interrogators in what amounted to drive-by hit jobs.
This pattern of media compliance was evident when GB News secured an interview in November, where interviewer Bev Turner simply nodded along or explicitly agreed with Trump's assertions—whether dismissing climate change as a hoax, criticizing Sadiq Khan, or making dubious claims about China's energy infrastructure. The president was satisfied, Ofcom remained content, and the job was done without challenging the narrative.
Historical Precedents Ignored
While Trump may lack historical awareness, others should know better. His claim that current tensions are unprecedented ignores multiple historical ruptures in the special relationship. During the Suez Crisis of 1956, the Eisenhower administration refused to support the UK-French-Israeli attempt to topple Egypt's President Nasser, resulting in British humiliation. In the mid-1960s, Harold Wilson rejected Lyndon Johnson's persistent pleas for British assistance in Vietnam, with LBJ reportedly begging for even a "company of bagpipers" to no avail.
Ronald Reagan initially remained neutral when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982, frustrating Margaret Thatcher. The following year, Reagan's "Operation Urgent Fury" invasion of Grenada—a Commonwealth country—occurred without advance warning, breaching international law and affronting British dignity. Yet through all these crises, the special relationship endured because, as Rusbridger notes, "the grown-ups were in charge." Previous leaders may have exchanged strong words privately, but none would have dreamed of calling opposition tabloids to publicly slag off their counterparts.
Churchill's Legacy Versus Trump's Contempt
Churchill enjoyed a genuine partnership with Franklin D. Roosevelt, bonding over three weeks of late-night drinking sessions after Pearl Harbor. His 1946 Iron Curtain speech coined the "special relationship" phrase, emphasizing shared values, European unity, and adherence to UN Charter principles. Churchill asserted that if Western democracies stood together within this framework, "their influence for furthering those principles will be immense and no one is likely to molest them."
Trump, in contrast, displays dripping contempt for the UN and its charter. His Gaza Board of Peace bypasses UN universality in favor of a hand-picked coalition. In Venezuela, US operations violating sovereignty directly contravened the UN Charter's prohibition on force against another state. Recent US-Israeli strikes on Iranian targets, conducted without Security Council authorization, again sidestepped the charter's central rule permitting force only in self-defense or with approval.
Trump's scorn extends to British sacrifices in Afghanistan, where he dismissively claimed the 457 who died "stayed a little back, off the front lines"—news to their grieving relatives. One can only imagine Churchill's revulsion at having to pretend to maintain any relationship with such a figure, let alone a "special" one. Trump has now announced he would demand a say in appointing any new Iranian leader, treating international diplomacy like an episode of The Apprentice.
Fleet Street's Troubling Alignment
Perhaps most disturbing are editorials siding with Trump, blaming Starmer rather than the president for placing the special relationship "on life support." Journalism often prides itself on being history's first draft, but drafting history requires knowledge of it. Fleet Street's willingness to amplify Trump's attacks while ignoring historical context represents a profound departure from Churchill's vision of shared values and international cooperation.
The special relationship has survived worse crises, but never before has a US president so deliberately weaponized British media against a sitting prime minister. As Rusbridger concludes, this episode reveals not just Trump's transactional approach to diplomacy, but concerning alignments within certain quarters of the British press that prioritize political point-scoring over historical awareness and journalistic integrity.
