It was a blaring signal of defiance and a remarkable diplomatic escalation.
The UK had taken the action arguing it had a moral imperative to stop the "destruction" of the two-state solution - a future independent Palestinian state - at the hands of the Israeli government. It accused Israel's government of turning a blind eye to the "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians by settlers.
The standoff, which by the afternoon extended to a further 11 mostly European countries set to join the settlement trade ban, raised a crucial question: When Israel becomes isolated, the US as its superpower backer often steps in to provide a diplomatic shield. Was the US, too, going to condemn Britain's policy?
Such a reprimand had been previewed by some observers. It felt even more likely when the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, appeared on the BBC before the UK announcement suggesting American "sanctions, repercussions or retaliations" could be coming for Britain, albeit that he didn't know what these were and hadn't spoken to President Trump.
But as Tuesday wore on, Washington's response was notably muted.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, asked about the UK move by reporters on the way to Colombia, said: "Obviously, we're not going to do what the UK did. We saw their announcement today but I don't have any comment on it right now. "
He added that Britain had notified the administration ahead of time (most likely during a phone call Trump had with UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham on Monday) and said the US shared "the goal of stability" at a tense time in the region and didn't "want to see some uptick in violence… in the West Bank".
It was hardly a withering rebuke of the British move, let alone any kind of punishment. In fact, Washington seemed to be sharing some of the concerns that motivated the move.
Asked about it on Wednesday, Trump said he would be speaking to Israel to understand their thinking, adding: "I understand exactly what's going on, but I want to find out why all of a sudden has that happened. "
My understanding is that discussions about the US response were taking place at a high level within the administration on Tuesday. The baseline position appeared to be against any moves that could negatively impact American companies.
Staunchly pro-Israel Republicans in Congress were very publicly arguing for actions against Britain; pointing out that US states like Florida have punitive laws against companies that boycott Israel. But from the White House and State Department, more targeted criticism of the UK did not materialise.
It is still possible the administration will come out with some condemnation of the British move in the coming days. But the lack of any urgent pushback is likely to reflect current frustrations within the Trump administration at the Israeli leadership.
Trump's biggest foreign policy priority currently is trying to prevent the crisis worsening in the Strait of Hormuz, now the focal point of his stalemated war with Iran. His joint attack with the Israelis has left numerous friction points in his complex relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At critical moments when Trump tried to reach a deal with Tehran, Netanyahu escalated fighting against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel has said it was acting against threats to security, but the moves had the potential to derail US diplomacy.
Meanwhile, Trump wants progress on his Gaza peace initiative, involving disarmament of Hamas and Israeli military withdrawal. Netanyahu has publicly rejected the plan in its current formulation.
Officially, the State Department referred me to Rubio's comments in Miami in relation to the UK announcement. But all told, Trump appears unwilling to come out to bat for Netanyahu currently.
This has extended to him so far not endorsing Netanyahu in the upcoming Israeli election. The administration, aware of splits within Trump's base of support on Israel, has also itself grown irritated at the extent of settler violence in the West Bank, given the lack of action by the Israeli government to meaningfully punish it. This is embarrassing for the White House.
West Bank violence against Palestinians is frequently the subject of protests from Trump's Gulf Arab allies - the countries mediating on Gaza, who Trump needs to pressure Hamas. They wonder how the US can draw concessions from the Israelis in relation to this if it can't on settler violence in the West Bank.
Trump eyes a legacy prize in both defeating Iran and moving forward with his Gaza peace plan - so batting for Israel against Europe over West Bank settlements seems to be, for Trump - so far, at least - juice that is not worth the squeeze.