Did the King’s visit to America reaffirm the importance of soft power?
The Big Ask | No. 16.2026
The royal state visit of His Majesty King Charles III to the United States (US) has drawn substantial media attention, both during and after the four-day tour. Much has been made of His Majesty’s speech to Congress in particular, with multiple outlets praising it as a ‘masterclass’ in diplomacy – including ones outside of the United Kingdom (UK).
At a time when the US under the Trump administration is expecting its North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies to increase defence spending and assume greater burden sharing, hard power has been positioned as the most important factor in British foreign policy. However, His Majesty’s visit has reignited discussion on the benefits of soft power. This provides the basis for this week’s Big Ask, in which we asked six experts: Did the King’s visit to America reaffirm the importance of soft power?
Director, British Foreign Policy Group
In an increasingly volatile global environment, it can be easy to focus purely on the need to strengthen hard power – how much ammunition, how many troops, and how equipped is the UK to be able to deter an enemy? These are critical questions, but they often ignore the fact that much of Britain’s standing and influence in the world stems from its soft power: from the fondness leaders derive from their time spent studying in the UK, from its reputation for upholding international law, and from the global intrigue and prestige that follows the Royal Family.
State visits then are an excellent diplomatic tool for Britain, creating powerful symbolic moments that help build a sense of warmth, humanness, and depth to bilateral relationships. This has helped to shape the UK’s position in the world throughout history, from King George VI’s visit to the US prior to the Second World War to the Royals’ embrace of a post-apartheid South Africa.
All that said, has His Majesty’s visit to the US saved the ‘special relationship? No. But that is as much about Donald Trump, President of the US, as it is about the soft power of the Royal Family. Where leaders are traditionally won over by alliances and friendship, Trump has shown a blatant disregard for the traditional rules of the international order, and for American allies and partners.
His Majesty’s visit will have temporarily softened relations, buying Britain a reprieve from Trump, but it will not have changed his long-term calculus when it comes to the UK and Europe. However, that does not mean that soft power does not work, and the value of a light reprieve in the current circumstances should not be underestimated. What it does mean is that soft power, including that of the royals, should be recognised as a key part of the full British diplomatic toolkit, which should be utilised alongside a wide range of other levers in order to support the UK’s security and prosperity in a fast-changing world.
International Fellow, Council on Geostrategy, and Senior Vice President of National Security and Intelligence Programmes, Centre for the Study of the Presidency and Congress
His Majesty’s visit to the US was an unqualified logistics and presentational success. It was a masterstroke of pomp and circumstance, pitch-perfect messaging (and cheeky humour), and a rare and exceedingly fleeting moment in Washington where everyone came together to celebrate something objectively good.
Most importantly, it pleased Trump. He is nothing if not attracted to the trappings of power, holds a special place in his heart for the Royal Family, and has a nostalgic view of the UK. His Majesty’s visit, therefore, ticked every presidential box.
As much of an objective win as the visit was, whether it counts as a soft power success is ultimately determined by what happens next in British-American relations. It is worth stating that too much emphasis is placed on soft power; states act out of national self-interest (even the US, and well before Trump became President), not simply because they like a counterpart. Likeability, even among allies as close as the UK and US, does nonetheless make relations easier.
Trump has (for now, at least) toned down his rhetorical attacks against Britain and the state of its armed forces, which had reached such levels that Buckingham Palace and 10 Downing Street were considering postponing the visit. If His Majesty’s trip tamps down the rhetoric against the UK and – more importantly – helps to course-correct the seeming downward direction of the special relationship, then the high-risk gamble of using the Crown in a febrile political environment will have paid off. If it only buys a few weeks of quiet on social media, the investment may well not have been worth the gain.
The herculean efforts of Whitehall and the Embassy team in Washington, who worked so diligently to ensure the visit happened as smoothly as it did, should nonetheless be followed by concerted policy action if His Majesty’s (HM) Government hopes to leverage the visit to maximum effect – well beyond the shortened attention span of Washington’s policymakers and (social) media pundits.
Associate Professor, Centre for War Studies, University of Southern Denmark
Many commentators have argued that His Majesty’s visit was a masterclass in diplomacy that reinforced shared historical values between the two states, even drawing praise from Trump. But does this diplomatic success actually reaffirm the importance of soft power?
Firstly, the ability of cultural or ideological content to generate soft power depends heavily on its resonance within other states. In this regard, the visit played to multiple audiences. Conservatives appeared to admire King Charles’ status as a monarch and his references to Christian values, while liberals appreciated his remarks to Congress regarding the limits of executive power. His Majesty successfully provided ideological resonance across the political spectrum, which is beneficial to the cultivation of soft power.
Secondly, soft power is not merely a popularity contest. Fundamentally, it is the capacity to influence another state’s foreign policy. Therefore, to claim that the visit enhanced British soft power, the US, or at least key constituencies within it, must become more aligned with the foreign policy objectives of the UK. Whether a single visit by a prominent figure can move this needle and permanently transform American perceptions or whether pre-existing transatlantic ideological divides will cause a rapid return to the historical baseline remains highly uncertain.
Therefore, while the visit illustrates that projecting soft power remains feasible despite increasing global ideological polarisation, the conversion of this resonance into the tangible desired foreign policy alignment likely requires a sophisticated and sustained diplomatic effort.
Senior Lecturer in Economic Warfare Education, King’s College London
Framed as ceremonial diplomacy, this off-protocol visit by His Majesty to the US was indeed an exercise in last-resort British soft power.
King Charles broke from established neutrality to deliver a political signal. His message was implicitly directed toward a Democrat audience, effectively lobbying against Trump’s security and foreign policy agenda. However, what appears as an exercise in damage limitation rather than diplomatic confidence will only have limited impact as geoeconomic realities kick in.
From a geoeconomic perspective, the symbolic soft power performance contrasts with prospective decline for both states. For the UK, its ever-growing sanctions regime has realigned energy and financial markets in ways that gradually erode British competitiveness while offering few compensating gains.
The UK’s economy is dangerously exposed to higher energy prices from the disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and will remain so for as long as HM Government remains committed to a policy of managed decline of North Sea oil and gas production. By contrast, the US, despite its disastrous Iran strategy, remains in a comparatively stronger position, both as a key exporter of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) and by virtue of its geographic distance from the primary zones of escalation.
Overall, while ceremony and warmth may ease friction in the short term, soft power is unlikely to correct the structural imbalance between the two countries. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) will be the key variable in this equation. Britain should avoid being drawn into another conflict (potentially more devastating than previous wars) and instead pursue a more balanced set of relations, rather than further entrenching its subordinate position within the intensifying American-Chinese geoeconomic rivalry.
Research Manager, Coalition for Global Prosperity
His Majesty’s visit to the US came after months of tension between the White House and 10 Downing Street. Indeed, three weeks before King Charles landed in America, Trump compared Sir Keir Starmer, Prime Minister, to Neville Chamberlain.
The visit provided a brief respite from the transatlantic strain. Trump declared that the US has ‘no closer friends’ than the UK, while His Majesty emphasised the importance of British-American cooperation, with AUKUS featuring prominently. Trump is evidently receptive to the Royal Family’s soft power, and this has helped to paper over current political frictions.
Nevertheless, the challenges facing the special relationship run far deeper than tensions between political leaders. The partnership rests less on sentimentalism than on the UK’s ability to advance shared interests through intelligence cooperation, military capability, and global influence.
This is increasingly under pressure. The Ministry of Defence’s £28 billion shortfall, a reluctance to designate the PRC as a threat, and Britain’s waning international influence – often allowing the rise of Russian and Chinese influence – are all weakening the foundations of the relationship.
A stronger British defence posture, particularly in the High North, will be key to preserving the relationship over the long term. The UK should also align its wider foreign policy tools more closely with the strategic competition against Russia and the PRC. If it fails to increase its strategic value to the US, the damage to the special relationship could prove irreparable, and no amount of soft power will be enough to compensate.
Professor of International Relations, University of Kent
Soft power is notoriously difficult to measure, and its effects are difficult to assess. It also cannot bridge significant divides in outlook or policy between two states. A state visit is more than an expression of soft power; it is an important piece of diplomatic action which a host state can use to signal that it values the preservation or deepening of a foreign policy relationship.
For HM Government, ‘deploying’ the House of Windsor to host and conduct state visits allows the UK to use what Walter Bagehot called the ‘dignified’ part of government to stimulate goodwill towards Britain. This function was well demonstrated during His Majesty’s visit to the US.
The visit clearly had importance and significance for Trump. His demeanour during the ceremonial and public events of the trip clearly demonstrated that he has a strong affinity for a key institution of the British state. His Majesty’s address to Congress was a masterful delivery in form and substance of the UK’s foreign policy philosophy, aspirations, and significance to a key constituency with which HM Government needs to maintain influence – regardless of whoever occupies the White House.
The visit was a masterclass in how the Royal Family can be used as an affective foreign policy tool by Britain, impacting perceptions of the country. It is a reminder that whatever the external perceptions of the government in office, the Royals’ unique appeal creates an affinity for Britain that can be used to national advantage.
If you enjoyed this Big Ask, please subscribe or pledge your support!
What do you think about the perspectives put forward in this Big Ask? Why not leave a comment below?
Britain has always been, at its best, a diplomatic superpower more than a military one. While hard power plays a significant role, we need to reclaim the legacy of Palmerston and Pitt - flexibility, coalition building, forward thinking, and a maritime focused doctrine