So much for the Spirit of ’76. As America nears the 250th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence from Britain, President Trump is mooting the idea of renewed bonds with the mother country. Amid reports that Charles III is weighing an offer of “associate membership” in the British Commonwealth of Nations, Mr. Trump signals that he would be amenable. “I Love King Charles,” Washington’s successor says. “Sounds good to me!”

It’s hard to imagine that idea going over well with the Founders and the generation that fought the Revolution to achieve American autonomy from the British crown. America, indeed, has traditionally kept its distance from the Commonwealth, a kind of watered-down version of the globe-spanning Empire that London once ruled and on which the sun — so to speak — never set. At least until recently. So why would America change course now?

Particularly since it’s not clear that an offer from Britain will be forthcoming. London’s Daily Mail reports that plans are “allegedly in the works to make the USA the next ‘associate member’ of the Commonwealth” and that the idea is under discussion “at the highest levels.” His Majesty’s Government says it is “a matter for the palace,” the Financial Times reports, even while “British officials said privately that they were unaware of any such proposal.” 

Should the invitation come through, would Mr. Trump accept on America’s behalf without consulting Congress? The Commonwealth membership criteria don’t specify the need for legislation or a treaty to join. Yet membership could, at least at first glance, impose some constraints on American sovereignty. Feature the requirement that member nations “acknowledge His Majesty King Charles III as the Head of the Commonwealth.”

Plus, too, would Americans “accept Commonwealth norms and conventions,” as the membership requirements state? The process  would also require America to proffer “a formal application” which would include “evidence” of, among other things, “popular support in that country for joining the Commonwealth.” On that head, Mr. Trump might want to look back to the rage with which American patriots responded to the Jay Treaty with Britain back in the 1790s.

That was the pact negotiated in 1795 by Chief Justice Jay under Washington’s direction. The treaty was meant to resolve some of the unfinished business of the Revolution, which ended in 1783 with America’s victory. Tensions between Britain and America still festered, with Britain occupying forts on the northern frontier, and its exports flooding the American markets. Plus, too, Britain was seizing American sailors, ships, and goods on the high seas. 

At the time, America didn’t, in Mr. Trump’s phrase, “have the cards” to forge a favorable deal with Britain, but Washington wanted a “reduction of tensions between the two nations.” The terms of Jay’s pact were seen by critics as “humiliating,” yet Washington saw it as the best that could be done, since America could not afford a new war with the Crown. The measure went to the Senate where it passed by the bare minimum, by 20 to 10 votes.

The public outrage prefigured the kind of vitriol now seen on platforms like X. A Senator from Kentucky was, one writer noted, “burned in effigy, vilified in print, and stoned in Frankfort.” Graffiti went up exclaiming: “Damn John Jay! Damn everyone who won’t damn John Jay!! Damn everyone that won’t put lights in his windows and sit up all night damning John Jay!!!” We would add that it’s bad enough we joined the United Nations.

Which brings us back to President Trump. His fondness for Britain’s royals has led the government, as the FT reports, “to deploy the royal family to smooth relations with Trump.” The passions aroused by Jay’s treaty could signal caution as Mr. Trump  contemplates bringing us back into the imperial orbit we escaped in 1776 and enter, even on an associate basis, a commonwealth headed by the great-great-great-great-grandson of George III.