In the wake of Donald Trump’s midterms misery, Andy Burnham should be careful not to mistake a lame duck for a tame one, writes Michael Martin

President Trump was never going to retire quietly, nor accept the blame for the Republicans’ midterm losses. As Democrats swept both chambers of Congress, his defence was that his name was not on the ballot. Candidates who spent months fighting uphill campaigns against historically high petrol prices, in a nation where nearly nine in 10 drive to work, will see it very differently.

Nevertheless, Tuesday’s result fired the starting gun on Trump’s lame-duck presidency. Having lost Congress, and with it the confidence of his party’s most motivated voters, he will find his authority tested soon. Vice-President JD Vance and secretary of state Marco Rubio will probably begin jostling to define post-Trump Republicanism. That will not sit well with a President obsessed with how others perceive his power and authority.

But No 10 should not confuse a lame duck with a tame one. A President stripped of domestic strength does not become less powerful, he simply has fewer places to exercise it. With a hostile Congress blocking him at home and no elections left to fight, Trump will turn to the one arena where the constitution still gives him a free hand: foreign policy. While his would-be successors build their brands for 2028, he will sprint to secure his legacy, most likely through a settlement in Ukraine and an end to the war with Iran, one way or another. He will pursue both with the undivided attention of a man with nothing left to lose. And his approach may come with fewer tariffs and sanctions and more from US troop moves and material withholding.

This week was a heavy defeat for Trump. Yet it also brings him a kind of freedom. He has no further campaigns to run, has never shown much inclination towards decorum, and will likely test his constitutional authority and the executive branch’s loyalty until the very last moment.

Could this be the most dangerous Trump for Burnham?

This is precisely when Britain’s exposure is greatest, which is why the Prime Minister’s response to the results was a misjudgement. Burnham read the American result as an endorsement of his own agenda, saying voters wanted an end to the war in Iran and a focus on the cost of living. As domestic politics, it makes sense. Anti-Trump sentiment runs deep, especially on the left, and with an early election possible, Burnham wants that vote consolidated. But there is a reason British Prime Ministers have traditionally avoided taking sides in American election results, because Britain must work with whoever occupies the White House.

The stakes have rarely been higher. For better or worse, the United States remains the guarantor of European and British security. Cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure are routine, coordinated bomb threats against civilian aircraft are becoming commonplace across Europe and our Baltic NATO allies face regular probing for weakness.

Some will argue that years of British deference, and two state visits, bought little. There is something in that. But the answer is national strength, which means a credible defence and intelligence budget, not a soundbite the morning after an election. Political capital spent scoring points against Trump buys applause at home, but costs support abroad.

Burnham can choose his words with care, as his work this week on an apology for Britain’s role in the slave trade showed. He should apply similar discipline now. Trump is weakened, not finished, and the next two years may be the most consequential, and dangerous, of his presidency for Britain. The national interest is served by putting it above party politics when it matters, however uncomfortable, not by racing to use the result for a point or two in the polls.

Michael Martins is the founder of Overton Advisory and formerly a staffer at the London US embassy