🔗 Share this article

Elected officials have raised concerns that the United Kingdom's recent agreements with Donald Trump are "lacking a solid foundation." This follows revelations that a much-touted deal on pharmaceutical tariffs, which promises zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS paying more, lacks any detailed agreement beyond limited headline terms outlined by government press releases.

Lacking Legal Footing

The arrangement concerning medicines, hailed as a "significant" achievement, exists as an "broad understanding" without formal ratification. Critics have noted that the official announcements from the UK and US governments present the deal in divergent terms. The British version focuses on securing "duty-free access" as a singular success, while the American announcement dwells on the agreement for the NHS to pay 25% more for new medications.

"There is a serious risk that the UK government has made commitments to increase medicine costs in return for only a pledge from President Trump," stated David Henig, a trade expert. "History shows he has a tendency for not following through on agreements."

Broader Instability and a Paused Tech Deal

Worries have been amplified 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.

Furthermore, concessions agreed to for British farmers as part of an earlier tariff deal have still not been formally signed off by the US, despite a imminent January deadline. "Our understanding is that the US has not finalized the reciprocal tariff rate quota," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Uncertainty Among Officials

In confidential discussions, ministers have voiced worries that the government's deals with Washington are unstable and unpredictable. One minister described the series of agreements as "built on sand," while another characterized the situation as the "prevailing condition" in the transatlantic relationship, marked by "increased uncertainty and instability."

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 naive belief that his administration is a trustworthy negotiator. The NHS is too precious to be gambled with."

A Mixed Picture of Success and Setback

Officials have downplayed the chances of the US backing out of the pharmaceuticals deal. One source noted the US pharmaceutical industry itself had been lobbying for the agreement, seeking certainty on imports and pricing, making it of tangible value than the paused tech deal.

Officials concede that unpredictability is a feature of dealing with the current US leadership. However, they contend that the UK has obtained tangible results for businesses, such as lower steel tariffs compared to other nations. "The fact we have 25% steel tariffs, which is lower than the rate for the rest of the world, is a concrete advantage," one official said.

However, delays have arisen in enacting the initial US-UK accord. Promised quotas on beef exports have yet to be finalized, and the commitment to "eliminate duties on UK metals" has remains unmet, with tariffs fixed at 25%.

Moving forward, the two sides have scheduled to restart talks on the paused tech prosperity deal in January, following what were described as "productive" meetings between UK and US officials in Washington.