Starmer put on an unctuous display, even by the standards of British prime ministers meeting US presidents. Terina Hine was nauseated.

When Keir Starmer and Donald Trump met at the White House, unpredictability and sycophancy were the themes for the day. Early reports were vomit-inducing with Trump salivating over a letter of invitation from the king for an ‘unprecedented’ second state visit to the UK, hand delivered by Starmer.

Starmer stood by like an anxious juvenile lover waiting for Trump to accept the invite. But Ukraine, not royal visits, was top of the agenda.

Ahead of the meeting, Starmer spoke of his trust in the president and said he was optimistic that the UK-US ‘special relationship’ would go from ‘strength to strength’, he also said, with no irony intended, that Trump is ‘clearly committed to NATO’.

And for Starmer there was good news. Firstly Trump appeared to endorse the Chagos Islands’ deal. He also appeared to row back on his ‘Zelensky is a dictator’ comments, which clearly made Starmer’s role sucking up to the president a little easier.

Starmer, keen for the main talking point of the day to be the ‘defence backstop’, a euphemism for a US security guarantee to safeguard British peacekeeping troops in Ukraine from any future Russian incursion. He must be hugely relieved, having told journalists on his way to Washington, ‘If there is a cease-fire [in Ukraine] without a backstop, it will simply give Putin the opportunity to wait and to come again.’

Trump claimed his mineral deal, which Zelensky is expected to sign on Friday, will not just enable peace but will also secure it: those US nationals digging for rare-earth minerals are to be the backstop. Plus let’s not forget, there are plenty of US troops, bases and nukes already in Europe.

Hardly surprisingly, Trump welcomed the possible deployment of a British peacekeeping force to Ukraine, ‘The British are, have been incredible soldiers, incredible military, and they can take care of themselves,’ he said, adding, ‘But if they need help, I’ll always be with the British.’ Sounds like that personal invite might have paid off. Or maybe it was the massive military-spending pledge announced by Starmer in preparation for his White House visit.

In preparation for the big day and in an attempt to appease Trump, Starmer shocked many in his own party by announcing a dramatic increase in UK defence spending – committing to 2.6% of GDP by 2027 and to 3% in the next parliament. A move that will not just deplete the overseas-aid budget – to be cut by 40% and hitting the world’s poorest – but will involve raising taxes or cutting public spending at home, or most probably both.

UK and European security have relied on America’s underwriting since World War II; clearly Starmer hopes it can remain thus. The stakes could hardly be higher for Starmer. Languishing in the polls at home, he has put considerable weight on building the transatlantic alliance that Trump seems so keen to demolish, and is desperate to take a lead role suggesting he, as British prime minister, could be a bridge between the US and the rest of Europe. The massive increase in military spending was for this purpose.

The other main talking point was trade and tariffs (no mention of TrumpGaza or Israeli war crimes, obviously). Asked if he would impose sanctions on the UK, Trump offered some hope, ‘I have to take a look,’ he said, ‘it’s a very different place [to Europe]… I have investments there. I own …’ Trump listed a bunch of places he ‘owns’ including Aberdeen. Not such good news for China, Canada and the rest of Europe.

But regardless of what Starmer said about trusting Trump, it is hard to do so. Only yesterday, while Starmer was in transit, the President told his cabinet, ‘I’m not going to make security guarantees beyond very much. We’re going to have Europe do that.’ And what actually happens with trade after Trump has looked, well like the security reassurances, it’s anyone’s guess.

Sycophancy may have won the day for Starmer, but for how long, only time will tell.