Some reports suggest an interesting geopolitical twist: King Charles, according to some, wants the United States to join the Commonwealth, and President Donald Trump, ever the wildcard, seems delighted by the prospect. On the surface, it may sound like tabloid stuff—Buckingham Palace meets Mar-a-Lago in a bizarre diplomatic tango. Yet, peel back the layers, and it comes together. In an era where alliances are shifting and old certainties are crumbling, this supposedly oddball idea might just hint at a broader realignment.
The US, under Trump’s somewhat bombastic leadership, is pivoting away from Europe and NATO toward a Pacific-focused future (plus a neo-Monroeist focus on the American continent). This being so, one would expect QUAD, and AUKUS to be its anchors, and enhancing the historically special relationship with Britain, in the post-Brexit world, would be the natural move to make – even though there are doubts about the American leader (largely seen as unreliable) commitment to AUKUS too. In this context, could King Charles, in his quiet manner, be playing mediator to a fracturing North American neighborhood? Moreover it could be part of a series of symbolic gestures to further enhance the British-American partnership.
Let us start with the buzz. Responding to a DailyMail news report (that the British King would make a secret offer to the American President to become the next associate member of the Commonwealth), Trump shared the news link on his Truth Social account with the words “I Love King Charles. Sounds good to me!”
The Commonwealth, a 56-nation bloc rooted in Britain’s colonial past. Almost all of Britain’s former colonies are now members of the Commonwealth of Nations, with Ireland and the US being notable exceptions. Of the 56, only a minority (14) recognise King Charles as their Head of State. In fact it is not even the first time that the notion of the US joining it has emerged: it was first floated during Trump’s first term.
So far, no official word from the Palace or the Commonwealth Secretariat has confirmed this, and skeptics dismiss it as clickbait fluff and yet another trumpism. After all, the King’s role as Commonwealth head is largely symbolic—he doesn’t dictate membership, in theory. But the timing of such reports tied to a supposed state visit by Trump to the UK, raises eyebrows (it would actually make Trump the first US president to be twice hosted by a British monarch). It’s not hard to imagine why the story is gaining traction.
As mentioned, it makes a lot of sense. Trump’s lack of enthusiasm for the transatlantic alliance is well known. NATO, to him, is, for the overburdened US, an overpriced deal that has everything to do with freeloading Europeans. Now, combine his “America First” ethos with the long geopolitical goal of eyeing the Pacific as the real arena of power, where China looms large.
If the US is to turn its back on Europe, doubling down on partnerships like the QUAD (US, India, Japan, Australia) and AUKUS (US, UK, Australia), a tighter bond with Britain could be a linchpin. The Commonwealth, with its loose, voluntary structure, offers a low-stakes way to cement that shift. It’s not a binding military pact like NATO—just a club of shared history and vague goodwill. For Trump, who loves a deal that sounds grand but costs little, it’s a tempting photo op. But it could also be part of larger diplomatic efforts.
Then there’s King Charles himself. Unlike his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, who embodied stoic continuity, Charles has signaled a more active—if subtle—approach to his role (as needed to maintain the United Kingdom united, even). Reports suggest the King is keen to mediate tensions between the US and Canada, a subplot in this Commonwealth saga.
Trump’s offhand remarks about annexing Canada (most likely half-joking, but in a context of threats and trade war) stirred the pot, and Canada’s Prime Minister has bristled at the idea of being America’s 51st state. Enter Charles, whose Commonwealth includes Canada, and who might see a US associate membership as a way to soothe the quarrel. It’s a diplomatic long shot, but it fits his apparent desire to modernize the institution while flexing soft power.
This all unfolds against a backdrop of American decline—or at least a strategic retreat.
The US remains a superpower, but it’s overstretched. The attrition proxy war in the Ukraine, trouble in the Middle East, a rising China, and domestic polarization have partially sapped its appetite for global policing. Trump’s instinct is to withdraw from far-flung theaters while still projecting strength—no weakness allowed. A Commonwealth nod could be a symbolic flex: aligning with Britain and its Pacific-leaning allies without the baggage of NATO’s mutual defense clause. It’s less about governance (the US isn’t hoisting Union Jacks) and more about optics—a “special relationship” upgrade for the Instagram age at the very least.
Critics may scoff. The Commonwealth isn’t really a power bloc; it’s a relic, they might say, with little economic or military heft. Why would the US even bother? And Charles, for all his good intentions, lacks the clout to pull it off. Moreover, membership decisions rest with the Secretariat, not the King, and the US joining—even as an associate—would face logistical and political hurdles. Congress would likely balk, and the public might see it as a step too close to monarchy. Yet the idea lingers because it taps into real currents: a US fed up with Europe, a Britain seeking post-Brexit relevance, and a King eager to redefine his legacy.
So, there is no reason to dismiss the idea of the US joining the Commonwealth as “absurd” at all. These are chaotic times, and “stranger” things have happened. It’s actually a quirky fit for a world where old alliances are fraying and new ones are improvised (and in fact there is nothing “new” about US-UK ties). In addition, Trump’s enthusiasm is the wildcard; he’d probably join just to “troll” his critics. Charles, meanwhile, might relish the chance to play statesman.
There are a few challenges to the supposed plan: it would require approval from all Commonwealth members, and Trump’s aggressive and antagonizing presidency (foreign policy-wise) could generate objections. There is an inherent contradiction with combining pivoting to the Pacific in an American-British partnership with neo-Monroeism (just ask Canada).
Domestically, any such pro-England move would face backlash from Trump’s more radicalized “MAGA” nativist base, who see London as a force of evil. But beyond the issue of the Commonwealth, the point is that a self-isolating America that has antagonized the rest of the world, needs a strong ally (and so does a President that has made too many enemies): the United Kingdom seems to be the only one who could offer that today. Any Commonwealth talk should be seen as at least a symbolic gesture in this context.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Uriel Araujo, PhD, is an anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.
Counter Information publish all articles following the Creative Commons rule creative commons. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.
No comments:
Post a Comment