Andy Burnham says he’d happily disagree with Donald Trump in public if he genuinely thought Britain’s interests were on the line, while describing their first phone call as warm and positive.
In his first big broadcast interview since moving into Downing Street, the new prime minister was asked whether he’d actually be willing to call Trump out when he thought the president had it wrong. “Of course,” Burnham said. “You have to defend your own national interest before anything else. That’s what you’re required to do if you’re to do this job properly.”
He wasn’t going to rule out taking a different position from Washington, or saying so publicly, if that’s what he genuinely believed was right for Britain. “I can’t at any point say that I won’t take a different opinion from him, that I will need to voice a different idea that is right for Britain,” he told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg. “I wouldn’t hold back from saying what I think is right.”
‘Really warm’, but not exactly trust
Burnham and Trump spoke by phone shortly after Burnham took office, a call Downing Street described as “extremely warm.” Trump later posted on Truth Social that Burnham had “a big job ahead of him” but would handle it fine, adding that America would be there to help.
Burnham’s own account matched that tone, he called Trump “really warm” during their first conversation. He was noticeably more careful, though, when asked whether he actually trusted the man. “We’ve had one phone call,” he said. “I always treat people as I find them, and it was a good exchange. It was, as I said before, a warm exchange.” He added: “It’s a changing world, isn’t it? You just obviously have to call things as they develop.”
That’s a genuinely diplomatic answer, and notably short of the full-throated endorsement Trump might have been hoping for. Burnham made it clear that keeping Washington close wouldn’t stop him speaking up whenever the two countries’ interests actually diverged.
That approach could get tested fairly quickly over Iran. Trump’s relationship with Burnham’s predecessor, Keir Starmer, had grown increasingly tense as Britain refused to back offensive US operations in the conflict, and Burnham’s confirmed he’s keeping that same line: Britain won’t be joining any American offensive action against Iran.
No election before 2029
Burnham also used the interview to rule out an early general election for the first time since taking over. “I’m going to rule it out,” he said. “There’s no early general election. I don’t think people want it.” His priority, he said, was “getting the country back where it should be” and delivering on the programme Labour was actually elected on in 2024.
Britain doesn’t automatically go back to the polls just because a governing party swaps its leader mid-term. Burnham became prime minister because he leads the party with a Commons majority, the same route previous mid-term prime ministers have taken without an immediate election. Critics argue his actual plans amount to a genuine departure from what Starmer originally offered voters, and Farage has been among those demanding an immediate national vote, arguing Burnham has no personal mandate for the direction he’s taking.
Burnham rejected that outright, pointing to Labour’s existing mandate and insisting the country had “voted for a manifesto” back in 2024. He also said the connection he built with voters as mayor of Greater Manchester would stay central to how he governs nationally. “My strength is remaining close to people, close to the public,” he said. “That will not change because I’m prime minister.” The next general election has to happen by 2029 regardless.
Less certainty on defence spending
If Burnham was firm on the election question, he was noticeably vaguer on defence. He wouldn’t commit to a specific date for getting Britain’s military spending up to 3% of GDP, despite the position his own new chancellor, John Healey, had previously staked out.
Healey resigned as defence secretary under Starmer after warning Britain wouldn’t be properly protected unless the government committed to hitting 3% by 2030. Burnham said he’d appointed Healey as chancellor knowing exactly where he stood on this. “I appointed my new chancellor very aware of what he had said about the critical importance of defence spending and the position that he had taken about that,” he said. “The first challenge facing us both is to ensure that the defence investment plan is fully funded, and that’s the thing that’s right in front of us. We need to work that through as we go towards the budget later this year.”
Pressed directly on when 3% would actually be reached, Burnham’s answer was simply: “We’ve got to work out the way of doing that.”
The government’s still formally committed to NATO’s wider target, 3.5% of GDP on core defence by 2035, but Burnham’s reluctance to commit to Healey’s preferred 2030 deadline suggests there are real unresolved questions about how any of this actually gets funded. Starmer’s own defence investment plan left Burnham with an estimated £4.7bn funding gap over the next four years, and hitting a more ambitious target would mean finding billions more through tax, borrowing, cuts elsewhere, or some combination of all three. New defence secretary Wes Streeting has similarly declined to promise the 3% target by 2030, saying the actual funding decisions need to be settled with the Treasury first.
A cautious first word on foreign policy
This interview is the clearest signal yet of how Burnham actually plans to handle the Trump relationship. There was no attempt to manufacture an early confrontation with Washington, but no automatic deference either, the kind British governments have often been accused of showing American presidents regardless of the circumstances.
His position, in practice, is pretty pragmatic: work with Trump wherever British and American interests genuinely line up, but keep the right to say so openly when they don’t. Whether that balance survives the first real disagreement between the two men will tell us a lot more than one warm phone call ever could.
For now, Burnham’s promised to put Britain’s interests first, and he’s told voters they won’t get a say on any of it until 2029 at the latest.
Leave a Reply