Donald Trump’s second presidential term has already shaken up the international stage. His unpredictable foreign policy and inward turn have left many US allies perplexed and recalibrating. Among them, Great Britain stands in a particularly precarious position. Since the end of World War II, the so-called ‘special relationship’ with Washington has been a cornerstone of British foreign policy and an integral part of Britain’s identity on the world stage.
As voices in both media and academia increasingly doubt the future of the special relationship, many focus on the implications for Britain’s economic interests or physical security. While important, this approach overlooks something deeper – something less visible but no less consequential: the role the special relationship has played in shaping Britain’s national identity.
A conceptual framework that captures this identity dimension particularly well is Ontological Security Studies. As an approach within International Relations (IR), it centres on states’ need for a stable sense of self and helps illuminate the special relationship as a cornerstone of Britain’s identity on the world stage. Far from being a niche academic term, ontological security provides a useful lens through which to consider what recent developments in Anglo-American relations might mean for Britain – and by extension, its evolving identity and place in the world.
More Than Strategy: The Deep Roots of the Special Relationship
The use of the term ‘special relationship’ was popularised by Churchill’s use of it in 1946 to refer to relations between Britain and the US. Since then, it has been applied to some other inter-state relations as well. In IR, special relationships are defined as exclusive and durable relations between states, built on mutual preferential treatment and widely recognised as qualitatively and positively distinct from other forms of inter-state relations. These relationships often go beyond mere strategic calculations, reflecting commonalities beyond materialistic interests.
While the term ‘special relationship’ gained prominence after Churchill’s 1946 speech, the shared ideological, political, and cultural narratives that underpin this bond have much earlier roots. For instance, the very architecture of the American political system – its parliamentary traditions, common law, and protections of individual rights – draws heavily from British institutions like the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. As Anglo-Saxon nations, both the US and Britain have long portrayed themselves as exceptional: champions of capitalism, liberal democracy, divided government, legal tradition, and civil liberties. These biographical narratives, integral to national identity, are not mere rhetorical devices; they deeply influence the foreign policy behaviour of both.
Thus, the division between ‘before’ and ‘after’ World War II in Anglo-American relations is somewhat misleading. The deep commonalities in language, values, and worldview helped transform cultural affinity into strategic alignment during and after the war. While the special relationship post-World War II was bolstered by converging security interests, economic ties, and nuclear cooperation, the relationship was never just about shared policy goals. It has always been underpinned by a deeper, more enduring narrative of shared identity.
The Special Relationship and Britain’s Ontological Security
To fully grasp this identity dimension, we can turn to Ontological Security Studies in IR, which further illuminates special relationships and their persistence in the face of strategic divergence[1]. Originally derived from sociology and psychology, the concept of ontological security suggests that individuals seek security not only in material or physical terms, but also in the continuity and stability of their self-identity. Human beings are driven by a fundamental need to maintain a coherent sense of ‘being’, which goes beyond mere physical survival.
As with many IR theories, this concept has since been extended to the state level. States, understood as collectives of individuals, similarly strive to preserve stable self-narratives. This manifests in behaviours that safeguard a state’s sense of purpose, continuity, and role within the international system – sometimes even at the expense of material interests. One way this ontological security-seeking behaviour manifests is through routinising relationships with other states, creating regular, predictable patterns of interaction with key partners.
It is little surprise, then, that special relationships are increasingly attracting the attention of ontological security scholars.
Given this theoretical grounding, the Anglo-American special relationship emerges as more than just a geopolitical convenience – it has long played a crucial role in sustaining Britain’s ontological security. The loss of empire in the 20th century and the accompanying identity crisis left the UK searching for a new role in the world. Partnering with the US, the emergent global hegemon, offered not only strategic benefits but also an emotional and symbolic anchor. Through repeated affirmations of shared values, military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and joint interventions, the relationship provided Britain with a narrative of continued global relevance – a way of preserving its identity as a major international actor despite its diminished imperial stature.
The special relationship, then, became routinised both practically and discursively: reinforced through structured cooperation, political rituals, diplomatic language, and a sense of historical continuity that reaffirmed Britain’s self-identity as a global power with privileged access to Washington.
Yet, ontological security theory reminds us that such identity-stabilising routines are inherently fragile. When these relationships are disrupted through divergent foreign policies, shifts in political rhetoric, or changing domestic priorities, a state’s sense of self can be thrown into disarray. These moments provoke what ontological security theorists term ‘existential anxiety’: a deeper and more destabilising form of insecurity, as it challenges not what a state has, but who it is.
It is against this theoretical backdrop that we now turn to examine what recent developments in the Anglo-American special relationship might mean for Britain. Viewed through the lens of ontological security, these changes carry implications far beyond strategic concerns – they strike at the heart of how Britain understands and narrates its identity and place in the world.
Disrupted Relations: Ontological Security at Risk
So, what might current developments in the Anglo-American relationship mean for Britain from an ontological security perspective?
The US under President Donald Trump has adopted a foreign policy that diverges sharply from the traditional, values-based approach that has defined its relationship with the UK since WWII. A transactional diplomacy, that prioritises material interests over shared ideals, has come to the forefront. Trade negotiations have become centred on tariffs and immediate economic gains, largely sidelining the longstanding cooperative spirit of the alliance. Despite Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently describing the US and UK as ‘intertwined’, President Trump imposed a 10 percent tariff on British goods entering the US – a baseline tariff also placed on nations without a special relationship, such as the UAE and Singapore. Moreover, President Trump’s increasingly isolationist stance, his scepticism towards multilateral institutions such as NATO, by-passing of allies (including Britain) in negotiations with adversaries, and his erratic diplomatic conduct all signal a departure from the predictability and mutual trust that once underpinned the special relationship.
On the one hand, such changes could be highly consequential from an ontological security perspective. As previously established, Britain has long relied on its relationship with the US as a central pillar of its post-imperial identity. This relationship has affirmed the UK’s continued relevance as a global actor, a custodian of liberal democratic values, and a close ally of a great power. If the special relationship is now threatened, then so too is the coherence of Britain’s biographical narrative – and consequently, its ontological security. A weakening or redefinition of this relationship could leave Britain unable to engage with the world in the ways it has grown accustomed to in recent decades, provoking not just material challenges, but a deeper sense of identity crisis and ontological anxiety.
On the other hand, it remains unclear whether the Anglo-American special relationship is truly in a state of irreversible decline, especially with Trump’s recently announced visit to the UK. Ontological Security Studies suggest that special relationships endure not despite conflicts of interest, but because of the ontological stability they offer. In the past, the special relationship has weathered significant challenges, from the Suez Crisis in 1956, when the US opposed British military action, to the Vietnam War and the conflict in Syria, where diverging policies created friction between the two allies. These past moments of tensions were often seen as a test to the special relationship, yet the UK and US consistently found ways to reaffirm their bond. The question today, however, is whether the current shift in US foreign policy represents a new kind of challenge: not merely a disagreement over policy, but a deeper divergence in values and visions of global order. Do the US and UK’s narratives of self still sufficiently converge to maintain the special relationship if one of the two is steering further away from previously shared values?
A Moment of Reckoning?
Yet, whether current shifts represent rupture or recalibration, they undoubtedly present Britain with a moment of ontological reckoning. They invite deeper reflection not only on strategic alignment but on identity itself – on who Britain believes itself to be in the world. If the partnership with the US is increasingly defined by volatility, transactionalism, and dissonance in fundamental values, then Britain must reconsider whether it can still rely on this partnership as a pillar of ontological security. The country stands at a crossroads: clinging to an increasingly unstable partner risks prolonging a nostalgic self-conception that no longer fits the realities of contemporary international politics. Yet, turning away also demands confronting an uncomfortable but necessary question: who is Britain without this anchor? What kind of power does it wish to be? What values should it champion? And through which relationships can it meaningfully enact that role?
In this light, the current shift in the special relationship becomes an opportunity for Britain to re-evaluate its identity and role in a rapidly changing international order. This is not merely a matter of adjusting strategic priorities, but of crafting a new narrative about who Britain is and where it fits in a world increasingly defined by multipolar competition and shifting alliances. By embracing this moment of reflection, the UK has the opportunity to move beyond the Anglo-American axis that has long defined it. This means confronting the discomfort of ontological insecurity – the unsettling realisation that long-held assumptions about Britain’s global role may no longer hold – and beginning the necessary work of constructing a more autonomous and resilient identity. That might mean reimagining Britain’s place within a multipolar world, investing more deeply in European, Commonwealth, or Global South partnerships, or carving out a clearer normative agenda on global issues such as climate change, conflict mediation, or technological governance.
Ultimately, Britain’s ability to navigate this chapter will depend on its willingness to confront these deeper questions of identity and purpose that underlie its foreign policy. The threatened end of ‘specialness’ could, in the end, be the beginning of something more enduring: a Britain that no longer needs to ask whom it stands beside in order to know where it stands.
Notes
[1] For the brevity and focus of this article, I have kept the theoretical section concise. If you are interested in delving further into the foundations of Ontological Security Studies, I would recommend consulting the works of scholars such as Jennifer Mitzen (IR), Brent Steele (IR), and Anthony Giddens (Sociology).