🔗 Share this article

Ministers and senior MPs have issued warnings that the United Kingdom's recent agreements with Washington are "built on sand." This stems from revelations that a recently announced deal on medicines, which promises zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS increasing its costs, lacks any detailed agreement beyond vague headline terms contained within government press releases.

Lacking Legal Footing

The deal on drug tariffs, described as a "generational" achievement, remains an "agreement in principle" without detailed provisions. It has been highlighted that the public statements from the UK and US governments describe the deal in sharply different terms. The British version focuses on securing "zero per cent tariffs" as a singular success, while the American announcement highlights the agreement for the NHS to pay 25% more for new medications.

"We face a genuine possibility that the UK government has made commitments to increase medicine costs in return for nothing more than a pledge from President Trump," said David Henig, a trade policy analyst. "We know he has a record of not following through on agreements."

Wider Concerns Amidst a Suspended Agreement

Worries have been amplified by Washington's recent decision to suspend the major technology agreement, which was previously heralded as "a huge leap forward" in the bilateral relationship. The US pointed to a insufficient movement from the UK on reducing other tariffs as the reason for the pause.

Additionally, concessions agreed to for British farmers as part of an initial accord have still not been formally ratified by the US, despite a looming January deadline. "Our understanding is that the US has failed to approve the agreed beef export quotas," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Anxiety Behind Closed Doors

Behind the scenes, ministers have voiced worries that the government's deals with Washington are lacking substance. One minister described the series of agreements as "resting on shaky ground," 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, argued: "What is even more astonishing than the US approach is the UK government's optimistic assumption that his administration is a reliable partner. The NHS is not a bargaining chip."

Official Reassurances and Concrete Outcomes

Ministry sources have attempted to minimize the risk of the US reneging on the pharmaceuticals deal. One source noted the US pharmaceutical industry itself had been advocating for the agreement, desiring stability on imports and pricing, making it less abstract than the paused tech deal.

Officials concede that unpredictability is a feature of dealing with the Trump administration. However, they contend that the UK has obtained tangible results for businesses, such as preferential tariff rates compared to other nations. "Securing 25% steel tariffs, which is better than the rate for the rest of the world, is a concrete advantage," one official said.

Nevertheless, delays have emerged in enacting the initial US-UK accord. Promised quotas on beef exports have yet to be finalized, and the commitment to "remove tariffs on British steel and aluminium" has not been fulfilled, with tariffs remaining at 25%.

Looking ahead, the two sides have scheduled to restart talks on the suspended digital agreement in January, following what were described as "productive" meetings between UK and US officials in Washington.