🔗 Share this article

Government ministers and leading parliamentarians have expressed alarm that the United Kingdom's recent agreements with Washington are "lacking a solid foundation." This comes after revelations that a so-called "milestone" deal on medicines, which pledges zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS facing higher prices, lacks any underlying contract beyond vague headline terms contained within government press releases.

A Deal Without Detail

The deal on drug tariffs, promoted as a "landmark" achievement, is still an "broad understanding" without detailed provisions. Critics have noted that the public statements from the UK and US governments frame the deal in sharply different terms. The British version emphasizes securing "duty-free access" as a singular success, while the American announcement dwells on the expectation for the NHS to pay higher prices 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 assurance from President Trump," commented David Henig, a trade expert. "It is documented he has form for not following through on agreements."

Broader Instability and a Paused Tech Deal

Worries have been heightened by Washington's move to put on ice the major technology agreement, which was previously called "a generational step-change" in the bilateral relationship. The US pointed to a lack of progress 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 ratified by the US, despite a imminent January deadline. "Our understanding is that the US has not yet signed off the agreed beef export quotas," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Private Ministerial Concerns

Behind the scenes, ministers have admitted unease 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 described 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: "Perhaps most shocking than the US approach is the UK government's credulous faith that his administration is a good faith actor. The NHS is of vital importance."

A Mixed Picture of Success and Setback

Government figures have attempted to minimize the chances of the US reneging on the pharmaceuticals deal. One source indicated the US pharmaceutical industry itself had been lobbying for the agreement, seeking certainty on imports and pricing, making it more concrete than the paused tech deal.

Officials concede that volatility is a feature of dealing with the Trump administration. However, they contend that the UK has secured concrete outcomes 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, problems have emerged in enacting the broader trade deal. Promised access for British beef have failed to be approved, and the pledge to "reduce steel tariffs to zero" has remains unmet, with tariffs remaining at 25%.

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