Andy Burnham Says He'd Publicly Break With Trump 'If Right for Britain,' Rules Out Early Election

Since Andy Burnham took over as prime minister and set up his new operation at what aides are calling No10 North, the open question has been how he'd handle Donald Trump differently than Keir Starmer did. Sunday's interview with the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg gave the first real answer: friendly for now, but no guarantees.

Burnham told Kuenssberg he'd call out Trump publicly "if right for Britain," declining twice to say flatly whether he trusts the U.S. president. "It's a changing world isn't it, and you just obviously have to call things as they develop," he said. It's a politician leaving himself room.

The two leaders had their first phone call earlier in the week, a 20-minute conversation Downing Street described as "extremely warm," according to ITV News. Trump followed up with a Truth Social post saying Burnham "has got a big job ahead of him, but he will be able to do it," and pledged the U.S. "will be there to help." Burnham told the BBC he found Trump "really warm" on the call and said he judges people as he finds them. Fair enough. One phone call isn't a track record.

But Burnham also flagged real friction points. He said he'd had "concern" about Trump starting the conflict with Iran and wouldn't "hold back from saying what I think is right." That's a direct continuation of the tension that defined the Starmer era, when Trump repeatedly criticized Starmer's refusal to let the U.S. launch strikes on Iran from British bases, according to the Mirror. Burnham isn't pretending that fight didn't happen. He's just trying to reset the tone while keeping the substance.

The defense spending dodge is the bigger story

Asked point-blank about committing to spend 3% of GDP on defense, Burnham wouldn't give a date. "We've got to work out the way of doing that," he said. It's the exact issue that blew up the previous government.

John Healey resigned as defense secretary specifically because he said Britain wouldn't be safe without a firm commitment to hit 3% by 2030, according to both the BBC and ITV News. Healey accused former Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Starmer of putting national security at risk by refusing to lock in that number, per ITV. Burnham then turned around and appointed Healey to a senior role anyway, telling Kuenssberg he was "very aware" of the position Healey had staked out. That's an uncomfortable pairing: the man who quit over a missing 3% commitment now works for a prime minister who still won't commit to it.

Burnham's actual answer was that the immediate priority is making sure the existing defense investment plan is "fully funded," and that the government will "work that through" ahead of a budget later this year. Translation: no promises yet, check back at budget time. Given that this is the identical dispute that just cost a government its defense secretary, vague reassurance isn't much of an upgrade.

There's a reasonable defense of Burnham's caution here. Locking in a hard percentage-of-GDP target without knowing where the funding comes from is how governments end up making promises they can't keep, and a new prime minister inheriting a fiscal mess has an argument for wanting the numbers settled before making commitments. Critics inside his own party, though, will point out that allies like Healey walked away from government over exactly this kind of can-kicking, and that Britain's NATO commitments don't wait for a budget cycle.

No early election, full stop