Andy Burnham’s recent by-election victory over Reform UK has been widely seen as a demonstration that the Labour Party can successfully challenge populist right-wing forces in the United Kingdom. However, should Burnham become prime minister, he will face a significant foreign policy challenge in repairing the strained relationship with the United States, particularly in the context of former President Donald Trump’s conduct during his tenure.

During Trump’s second term, relations between the UK and the US were marked by tension and discord. Trump reportedly viewed the UK more as a subordinate than a partner, issuing threats of punitive tariffs on British goods and expressing disapproval of the UK’s digital services tax. The Trump administration also reportedly pressured the UK government of Sir Keir Starmer to grant access to British military bases for operations related to Iran, initially denying the request but ultimately acquiescing. Public perceptions reflected this fraught dynamic, with polling indicating that 85 percent of Britons held an unfavorable opinion of Trump. Critics argue that Starmer’s conciliatory approach to Trump contributed to a perception of weakness in his leadership.

Experts suggest that voters expect their leaders to assert national interests robustly rather than yield under pressure. In this regard, comparisons have been drawn to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who despite Canada’s economic reliance on the US, adopted a defiant stance toward Trump’s economic and territorial threats. Carney characterized attempts to appease such pressure as compromising sovereignty, a position articulated during his January speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. This approach reportedly resonated with the Canadian public, boosting Carney’s approval rating to 60 percent and enhancing his standing both domestically and internationally.

There are parallels within the United States as well. Governors such as California’s Gavin Newsom and Illinois’ JB Pritzker have confronted Trump and reportedly benefited politically from it. Newsom’s efforts include countering Republican redistricting efforts in Texas and vocal criticism of Trump, which coincided with a notable rise in his approval ratings and improved positioning for a potential 2028 presidential bid. Pritzker, meanwhile, has resisted pressure from the Trump administration, including the deployment of the National Guard in Chicago.

These examples illustrate a pattern whereby leaders who confront Trump publicly often see gains in political support. Trump’s populist appeal partly stems from his image as a combative protector of ordinary citizens; leaders who attempt to placate him risk appearing weak by comparison.

For Burnham, the incoming leadership in the UK represents an opportunity to break from the conciliatory posture displayed by Starmer’s administration. The UK’s economic challenges post-Brexit, exacerbated by the influence of populist figures such as Nigel Farage, create a context in which a firm stance against the populist right’s agenda may resonate with voters. Drawing on the lessons from Canada and US states like California and Illinois, Burnham could strengthen his political position by clearly opposing aspects of Trump-style populism and asserting Britain’s sovereign interests in dealings with the US.