🔗 Share this article

Ministers and senior MPs have issued warnings that the United Kingdom's recent agreements with Donald Trump are "built on sand." This comes after revelations that a much-touted deal on pharmaceutical tariffs, which promises zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS facing higher prices, lacks any formal legal text beyond vague headline terms outlined by government press releases.

A Deal Without Detail

The deal on drug tariffs, hailed as a "generational" achievement, is still an "broad understanding" without a signed legal text. It has been highlighted that the press releases from the UK and US governments frame the deal in markedly contrasting terms. The British version celebrates securing "duty-free access" as a unique achievement, while the American announcement dwells on the agreement for the NHS to pay higher prices for new medications.

"There is a serious risk that the UK government has promised concessions to raise drug prices in return for only a pledge from President Trump," said David Henig, a trade policy analyst. "History shows he has form for not keeping promises."

A Pattern of Unreliability

Worries have been heightened by Washington's action to suspend the £31bn "tech prosperity deal", which was previously described as "a generational step-change" in the bilateral relationship. The US pointed to a lack of progress from the UK on reducing other tariffs as the reason for the pause.

Additionally, concessions agreed to for British farmers as part of an May trade agreement have yet to be formally approved by the US, despite a imminent January deadline. "It is our belief that the US has failed to approve the reciprocal tariff rate quota," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Private Ministerial Concerns

Privately, ministers have voiced worries that the government's US-UK accords are lacking substance. One minister was quoted as stating the series of agreements as "built on sand," while another described the situation as the "prevailing condition" in the transatlantic relationship, marked by "greater risk and fluctuation."

Layla Moran, a senior MP on the health committee, stated: "The only thing more surprising than the administration's tactics is the UK government's optimistic assumption that his administration is a reliable partner. The NHS is too precious to be gambled with."

Official Reassurances and Concrete Outcomes

Ministry sources have downplayed the possibility of the US reneging on the pharmaceuticals deal. One source suggested the US pharmaceutical industry itself had been advocating for the agreement, desiring stability on imports and pricing, making it of tangible value than the paused tech deal.

Officials acknowledge that unpredictability is part and parcel of dealing with the Trump administration. However, they maintain that the UK has achieved real benefits for businesses, such as reduced duties on automobiles compared to other nations. "Securing 25% steel tariffs, which is better than the rate for the rest of the world, is not flimsy," one official said.

Nevertheless, problems have emerged in carrying out the May tariff agreement. Promised access for British beef have not materialized, and the pledge to "reduce steel tariffs to zero" has remains unmet, with tariffs remaining at 25%.

Looking ahead, the two sides have planned to recommence talks on the paused tech prosperity deal in January, following what were described as "very positive" meetings between UK and US officials in Washington.