🔗 Share this article

Ministers and senior MPs have raised concerns that the United Kingdom's recent agreements with Washington are "lacking a solid foundation." This stems from revelations that a much-touted deal on medicines, which pledges zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS facing higher prices, lacks any detailed agreement beyond vague headline terms outlined by government press releases.

Lacking Legal Footing

The US-UK pharmaceuticals agreement, hailed as a "landmark" achievement, remains an "broad understanding" without a signed legal text. Critics have noted that the press releases from the UK and US governments describe the deal in markedly contrasting terms. The British version emphasizes securing "zero per cent tariffs" as a singular success, while the American announcement highlights the expectation for the NHS to pay significantly more for new medications.

"There is a serious risk that the UK government has promised concessions to raise drug prices in return for little 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."

A Pattern of Unreliability

Concerns have been amplified by Washington's action to suspend the major technology agreement, which was previously called "a transformative pact" 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.

In a separate development, concessions agreed to for British farmers as part of an initial accord have not been formally signed off by the US, despite a fast-approaching January deadline. "We have been informed that that the US has failed to approve the agreed beef export quotas," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Private Ministerial Concerns

Privately, ministers have admitted unease that the government's US-UK accords are unstable and unpredictable. One minister described the series of agreements as "built on sand," while another described 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: "What is even more astonishing than Trump's temper tantrums is the UK government's optimistic assumption that his administration is a reliable partner. The NHS is too precious to be gambled with."

A Mixed Picture of Success and Setback

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

Officials acknowledge that instability is part and parcel of dealing with the Trump administration. However, they maintain that the UK has achieved real benefits for businesses, such as preferential tariff rates compared to other nations. "Securing 25% steel tariffs, which is more favorable than the rate for the rest of the world, is not flimsy," one official said.

However, delays have emerged in carrying out the May tariff agreement. Promised quotas on beef exports have not materialized, and the commitment to "reduce steel tariffs to zero" has not been fulfilled, with tariffs remaining at 25%.

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