🔗 Share this article

Ministers and senior MPs have expressed alarm that the United Kingdom's recent agreements with the US administration are "lacking a solid foundation." This comes after revelations that a much-touted deal on pharmaceutical tariffs, which pledges zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS increasing its costs, lacks any formal legal text beyond broad headline terms contained within government press releases.

An Agreement in Principle Only

The deal on drug tariffs, promoted as a "landmark" achievement, exists as an "agreement in principle" without a signed legal text. Observers point out that the public statements from the UK and US governments present the deal in markedly contrasting terms. The British version focuses on securing "duty-free access" as a singular success, while the American announcement dwells on the expectation for the NHS to pay 25% more for new medications.

"The danger exists that the UK government has agreed to terms to increase medicine costs in return for nothing more than a pledge from President Trump," stated David Henig, a trade expert. "History shows he has a record of not keeping promises."

A Pattern of Unreliability

Worries have been intensified by Washington's move to pause the £31bn "tech prosperity deal", which was previously called "a transformative pact" in the bilateral relationship. The US pointed to a insufficient movement from the UK on addressing wider trade issues as the reason for the pause.

In a separate development, concessions promised for British farmers as part of an earlier tariff deal have still not been formally ratified by the US, despite a fast-approaching January deadline. "It is our belief that the US has not finalized the reciprocal tariff rate quota," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Private Ministerial Concerns

Behind the scenes, ministers have expressed concerns that the government's agreements with the US are lacking substance. One minister was quoted as stating the series of agreements as "built on sand," while another framed 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, stated: "What is even more astonishing than the US approach is the UK government's naive belief that his administration is a trustworthy negotiator. The NHS is not a bargaining chip."

A Mixed Picture of Success and Setback

Ministry sources have attempted to minimize the chances of the US backing out of 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 volatility is inherent in dealing with the Trump administration. However, they maintain that the UK has secured concrete outcomes 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 not flimsy," one official said.

Nevertheless, issues have emerged in carrying out the May tariff agreement. Promised reciprocal agricultural allowances have not materialized, and the commitment to "reduce steel tariffs to zero" has is still pending, with tariffs remaining at 25%.

As negotiations continue, the two sides have agreed to resume talks on the suspended digital agreement in January, following what were described as "productive" meetings between UK and US officials in Washington.