FTI Consulting UK Public Affairs Snapshot: A Royal Intervention – Soft Power and the Special Relationship

The UK-US ‘Special Relationship’ has weathered many storms, but the arrival of King Charles III in Washington came at a moment of particular strain. The two governments have found themselves at odds on a number of fronts in recent months, with President Donald Trump publicly criticising Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer over disagreements ranging from the UK’s reluctance to support US military action on Iran to its resistance to deploying forces in the Strait of Hormuz. 

The friction had led critics to openly question whether the transatlantic bond could withstand the pressure of two leaders so evidently at odds. Against that backdrop, the King’s state visit, coinciding with the celebrations marking America’s 250th anniversary, was, in that sense, well-timed – an occasion for the Palace to demonstrate the unique diplomatic currency of the monarchy. 

From the outset, the visit was framed by Whitehall as a piece of carefully calibrated soft diplomacy. The monarchy’s neutrality was therefore its greatest diplomatic asset in this circumstance. The King could engage Trump on his own terms: personally, and with the kind of ceremony that the current occupant of the White House has rarely been able to resist.  

The pivotal moment of the visit was the King’s address to a joint session of Congress. It was described by Buckingham Palace as a “high stakes” moment which, by most assessments, he navigated with considerable finesse. The speech drew a dozen standing ovations and genuine bipartisan warmth from a chamber that is rarely united. Its content was not entirely independent of Number 10, however, having ultimately been written by the Government and delivered messages endorsed by Downing Street, albeit with the King’s input.  

Stressing the value of the “indispensable” relationship, the King’s speech struck a tone that was tactful and quietly firm: invoking the spirit of 1776 to acknowledge that the two nations do not always agree, while making clear that disagreement need not preclude partnership. He spoke with evident pride of his service in the Royal Navy – a pointed reference given Trump’s recent criticism of that institution – and called for resolve in support of Ukraine, in a passage that functioned as a subtle but legible rebuke to the administration’s more equivocal position. 

The results were not merely symbolic. In the immediate aftermath of the royal couple’s departure, the President announced that he would be removing tariffs and restrictions on British whisky imports, crediting the King and Queen directly. For an industry severely impacted by the introduction of duties, the announcement was a tangible and welcome dividend, and one the UK government had failed to secure through conventional trade negotiations. It was a reminder that personal rapport, deployed at the right moment, can move things in a way that formal diplomacy cannot. 

The visit was not without its complications. Leaked audio of the newly-appointed UK Ambassador, Christian Turner, privately casting doubt on the value that the US places on the special relationship caused an awkward moment for Downing Street, timed as it was to land just as the King and Queen were being received at the White House. The Foreign Office moved quickly to distance itself, and the story was ultimately subsumed by the broader positive reception to the visit itself. 

There is, however, a harder question that the goodwill generated last week cannot fully answer. Trump’s warmth toward the King was genuine and demonstrable – but the President was also pointed in drawing a contrast with Starmer, making clear that the royal couple had achieved something others had not. That message, however diplomatically inconvenient, reflects a real tension that the visit has eased but not resolved.  

The success of the visit has reflected the unique tool of the royals in the cabinet of HM Government, which they will no doubt look to capitalise on moving forward. The King has done what formal channels could not, and the soft diplomatic ground gained is real. But the relationship will remain sensitive to the ebbs and flows of the President’s attention and priorities.   

The health of the broader bilateral relationship will ultimately be determined by whether Starmer and Trump can develop a more functional working dynamic. That remains the unfinished business, and the rather more difficult chapter still to come.