🔗 Share this article

Elected officials have raised concerns that the United Kingdom's negotiated accords with Donald Trump are "built on sand." This stems from revelations that a recently announced deal on medicines, which commits to zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS increasing its costs, lacks any formal legal text beyond broad headline terms published in government press releases.

An Agreement in Principle Only

The arrangement concerning medicines, hailed as a "generational" achievement, remains an "statement of intent" without formal ratification. Critics have noted that the press releases from the UK and US governments present the deal in markedly contrasting terms. The British version focuses on securing "duty-free access" as a unique achievement, while the American announcement concentrates on the agreement for the NHS to pay significantly more for new medications.

"The danger exists that the UK government has promised concessions to increase medicine costs in return for little more than a verbal promise from President Trump," stated David Henig, a trade expert. "History shows he has form for not honouring his word."

Broader Instability and a Paused Tech Deal

Worries have been heightened by Washington's action to suspend the high-value digital accord, which was previously called "a huge leap forward" in the bilateral relationship. The US claimed a failure to advance from the UK on addressing wider trade issues as the reason for the pause.

Furthermore, concessions promised for British farmers as part of an initial accord have still not been formally signed off by the US, despite a looming January deadline. "We have been informed that that the US has failed to approve the reciprocal tariff rate quota," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Private Ministerial Concerns

In confidential discussions, ministers have expressed concerns that the government's agreements with the US are unstable and unpredictable. One minister described the series of agreements as "built on sand," while another characterized the situation as the "current reality" in the transatlantic relationship, marked by "additional layers of volatility and unpredictability."

Layla Moran, a senior MP on the health committee, remarked: "Perhaps most shocking than the administration's tactics is the UK government's naive belief that his administration is a trustworthy negotiator. The NHS is not a bargaining chip."

Government Downplays Risks, Points to Gains

Officials have sought to reduce the risk of the US reneging on the pharmaceuticals deal. One source suggested the US pharmaceutical industry itself had been lobbying for the agreement, wanting clarity on imports and pricing, making it less abstract than the paused tech deal.

Officials concede that volatility is a feature of dealing with the current US leadership. However, they argue that the UK has achieved real benefits for businesses, such as reduced duties on automobiles compared to other nations. "The fact we have 25% steel tariffs, which is more favorable than the rate for the rest of the world, is a concrete advantage," one official said.

Yet, issues have arisen in carrying out the initial US-UK accord. Promised reciprocal agricultural allowances have not materialized, and the commitment to "eliminate duties on UK metals" has remains unmet, with tariffs staying at 25%.

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