Trump’s succession battle could soon become Britain’s problem

Last week’s midterms handed the Democrats both chambers of Congress and left Donald Trump little room to govern at home. The President’s explanation, that Republicans suffered because his name was not on the ballot, is classic Trump, but it does not hold water. The war in Iran drove up petrol prices and household bills, and voters were reminded every time they opened their wallets. Those same voters punished a President who seemed more interested in his ballroom and triumphal arch than in their cost of living. In even more classic Trump, this seemed not to faze him - hours after the defeat, one of his first public events was a lengthy tour of the White House ballroom. And as the dust began to settle, his early message to the new Congress is best encapsulated in a single word: “VETO”.

For Britain, the more consequential story began the next morning. Vice President JD Vance posted his own explanation for the loss: the cost of living, the war in Iran and America’s relationship with Israel. In doing so, he sketched the foreign policy of a Vance presidency that he thinks will appeal to the MAGA base and the traditional Republicans alike. Importantly, publicly telling the world that while the emperor may not be naked, he is most certainly not fully dressed, should best be treated as the starting gun in the race to succeed Trump. Even though the election is two years away, the campaign leading up to it will shape American foreign policy for the rest of this presidency and beyond as candidates carve out their niches and set out their stalls. Few allies are more exposed to that process than the UK.

Weaker at home, freer abroad

A President weakened at home is not necessarily weaker abroad. Trump faces an obstructive Congress and has no campaign of his own ahead, so he will look to foreign policy to build his legacy. It is the one arena where he retains near-total freedom of action as Commander in Chief. The war in Iran and the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro have shown that he can order strikes long before Congress can slow him down.

Democrats so far have been focused mainly on domestic retribution, promising to investigate corruption, even though they lack the necessary super-majority votes in the Senate to enforce any severe punitive action. Although this will fire up their base ahead of 2028, they will need far more courage to use their real foreign policy lever, the power of the purse. Threatening to withhold military funding invites the charge that they are “undermining the troops”, and Republicans will be sure to make it in 2028.

That leaves two questions hanging over the next two years. Will Trump use his freedom to end the war in Iran or to escalate it? Will he continue to support Ukraine or threaten to abandon it? Either choice will land directly on the UK, and the answers will increasingly be shaped by the men competing to succeed him.

The succession dilemma

Vance could afford to fire the starting gun because he is the one senior figure in the MAGA orbit whom Trump cannot sack. He is using that protection to stake out an America First, anti-war position aimed squarely at the voters who deserted the party at the midterms. He had defended aspects of the war for months, so he was careful to frame his verdict as consistent with the President’s own. It appears to have worked, as Trump called the post “fine” rather than lambasting it or Vance himself.

Marco Rubio, the other frontrunner, has no such protection as a politically appointed Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. Rubio, the White House and the State Department have all denied reports that he is weighing resignation to run. Rubio has also said he would back Vance if the Vice President stood.

Few in Washington take those holding lines at face value in the long term because Rubio’s dilemma is real. If he leaves early, he can build a campaign before Vance consolidates the ground between the party’s wings, but he risks looking disloyal. If he stays, he can wait for a moment when leaving looks like duty rather than ambition, perhaps in a further escalation in the war in Iran. Every week he stays, however, binds his name more tightly to a war that has become decisive for many voters, and leaves him further behind, while resigning over Iran risks him affirming his main political opponent’s strongest point of contention.

The two men’s fortunes are therefore linked. The further Vance drifts from Trump, the more Rubio becomes the loyalist by default i.e., safer with the President, but more exposed to the Republican base on Iran. In the end, the price of petrol may decide his timing more than anything said in Washington.

What this means for Britain

The first risk is of Burnham’s own making. Burnham has already publicly read the midterms as a vindication of his domestic priorities on the cost of living and Iran, tying Burnhamism to the Democrats’ victory. That may play well with Labour voters ahead of a possible snap election, but British prime ministers have long stayed out of American politics for good reason. The next two years are likely to bring Republican infighting on a scale not seen since Trump’s first months in office. Vance, Rubio and a field including Pete Hegseth, Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis will all try to build a profile under a President who refuses to share the microphone or the spotlight. Burnham should stay above it. The UK does not choose its partner, and for two more years Trump will continue to underwrite European security and deterrence.

The second risk is losing one of Britain’s most dependable interlocutors. Rubio has built a pragmatic working relationship with many prominent British politicians and officials, including Ed Miliband. Of the figures around Trump, he offers the clearest prospect of something approaching business as usual from the pre-Trump era. Burnham’s choice to essentially endorse his main political rival could end up coming back to haunt him, should Rubio become the heir apparent.

The third risk follows from the first two. As ambitious lieutenants leave to fight for the succession, the President’s circle thins just as his appetite for a legacy grows. That could mean escalation in Iran or a Ukraine deal struck over Europe’s head. Either way, the final stretch of this presidency could be its most dangerous moment for the UK, so it would be a good time to be a good partner and friend and stay out of the family drama.

The views expressed in this article are the authors' own and do not necessarily represent those of BFPG.